latest HA articles - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 10, 2004

RE: latest HA articles

Date: Dec 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Malapropism
"Mr. Wonderful - either your award or our award but this must get some recognition!!!"

Duly noted, Mal. We will duke it out for this one!

Date: Dec 10, 2004

This is a bit off thread, but what kind of coverage has there been in The Student Printz or has it stopped publishing for this semester?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"I'll bet it came straight from Darth Mader's office. It has "spin" written all over it. Also, "Bad decision, lie, cover-up," too."

Truth--

As others have pointed out on other threads, the timeline may have been produced in hopes of raising questions about the Fleming administration but it is damning for the Thames administration. The question that the IHL Board should ask is "When did SFT know that SACS accreditation was in jeopardy?" The answer, according to the timeline USM has produced, is "June 24, 2002," when Brad Bond reported to Thames that the "University is not now in compliance with SACS mandates." A modestly competent administrator, recognizing the importance of that report, would have made it the top priority to change that situation, beginning June 25, 2002.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
Truth--
As others have pointed out on other threads, the timeline may have been produced in hopes of raising questions about the Fleming administration but it is damning for the Thames administration. The question that the IHL Board should ask is "When did SFT know that SACS accreditation was in jeopardy?" The answer, according to the timeline USM has produced, is "June 24, 2002," when Brad Bond reported to Thames that the "University is not now in compliance with SACS mandates." A modestly competent administrator, recognizing the importance of that report, would have made it the top priority to change that situation, beginning June 25, 2002."

Kevin Walter's articles in today's Clarion Ledger and Hattiesburg American emphasize that June 24, 2002 memo. It's up to the reader to connect the dots.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

In today's HA the following from Fleming...

"I have not seen the SACS report, so I can only comment generally on this issue," said Fleming in an e-mail on Friday. "The timeline for SACS accreditation issued by the university administration shows that during my tenure at the University of Southern Mississippi all SACS requests for reports and periodic information updates were fulfilled in a timely fashion. I left USM at the end of August 2001. At that time, we were in good standing with SACS."

Date: Dec 11, 2004

people are failing as they look at the timeline to ask a critical question--why would SACS get mad at us in 2002? They don't get a burr under their saddle for no reason. I'll tell you why--between 1997 and 2002 we were supposed to be doing things about institutional effectiveness and its assessment. We may not have had to file reports but by 2002 we had to show actions. We could not because they weren't happening. Fleming is technically correct--in 2001 we were in good standing, but for those who know accreditation it wasn't going to be for long. If I'm not mistaken, summer of 2002 was when the university planning and assessment committee was formed. It was formed because nothing had happened for the previous 5 years as SACS expected.

My question is: what was the faculty senate, academic council, and graduate council doing during the 1997-2002 time about these issues.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
" It was formed because nothing had happened for the previous 5 years as SACS expected. "

Then Shelby Thames should have known enough about university operations to make this his top priority in 2002. That he didn't is the ultimate failing of his presidency.

Your other question only helps him to point the finger elsewhere Stinky Cheese Man.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Spittin' Fire
" Then Shelby Thames should have known enough about university operations to make this his top priority in 2002. That he didn't is the ultimate failing of his presidency."

He is finally getting the legacy he so wanted - responsibility for the tier drop and loss of accreditation - what a waste.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"My question is: what was the faculty senate, academic council, and graduate council doing during the 1997-2002 time about these issues. "

Stinky Cheese Man - Like Joseph, you seem to wear a coat of many colors. At first I thought you might be a troll. Then a mole. Then a double agent. But during the past week you appeared to be a real trooper. Until today. Your most recent post seems to be that of an enabler. I am buffaloed. But one thing I do know: you are extremely knowledgable about the inner sanctum - far more knowledgable than the typical poster. I do enjoy your posts. Please continue posting. Maybe you're just a flexible sort of person.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

i am indeed flexible. I just know some about the behind-the-scenes. i also don't hypocrisy--and i see a lot of it from some public figures in all of this. some who want to appear as white knights aren't that noble. i will say some are.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"people are failing as they look at the timeline to ask a critical question--why would SACS get mad at us in 2002? They don't get a burr under their saddle for no reason. I'll tell you why--between 1997 and 2002 we were supposed to be doing things about institutional effectiveness and its assessment. We may not have had to file reports but by 2002 we had to show actions. We could not because they weren't happening. Fleming is technically correct--in 2001 we were in good standing, but for those who know accreditation it wasn't going to be for long. If I'm not mistaken, summer of 2002 was when the university planning and assessment committee was formed. It was formed because nothing had happened for the previous 5 years as SACS expected.
My question is: what was the faculty senate, academic council, and graduate council doing during the 1997-2002 time about these issues.
"

What was Faculty Senate, Academic Council, and Graduate Council doing about these issues? I think the proper question is what COULD they have been doing after the wake up call memo that we were not in compliance. Since we were not told...

As I was part of the group summoned to the admin building for the 2:30 meeting on 12/7/04, I believe a similar meeting could have been called a few days after the wake up call memo. This should have been followed by a press release in 2002, with follow up meetings, and thousands of dollars of resources applied THEN.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
". . hypocrisy--and i see a lot of it from some public figures in all of this. some who want to appear as white knights aren't that noble."

Stinky, I like your way of looking at all five sides of the issues. I'm 100% with you on what you say here. There do seem to be some chameleons out there disguised as white knights. I had the misfortune of bumping into a couple of them myself.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

amy--i don't mean recently. I mean from 95 until now. institutional effectiveness, planning, and assessment have been something we should have dealing with since then. in fact, i am sitting here with a copy of the september "03 compliance report to SACS and it says precisely that. we were told in '95 we had to start. that's why the 5 year period from '97 to '02 was so critical. SACS expected us to be doing things and we didn't. i would have hoped the committees i pointed to would have been asking the question'--what are we doing about this? again, i hope faculty take it upon themselves, particularly those on the major committees of this university, to educate themselves about accreditation.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"amy--i don't mean recently. I mean from 95 until now. institutional effectiveness, planning, and assessment have been something we should have dealing with since then. in fact, i am sitting here with a copy of the september "03 compliance report to SACS and it says precisely that. we were told in '95 we had to start. that's why the 5 year period from '97 to '02 was so critical. SACS expected us to be doing things and we didn't. i would have hoped the committees i pointed to would have been asking the question'--what are we doing about this? again, i hope faculty take it upon themselves, particularly those on the major committees of this university, to educate themselves about accreditation. "

Well, I have a copy of the SACS principles on my desktop and I am trying to learn. No doubt as part of one of the newly appointed teams, I will continue my education.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

amy--i hope people who know something are consulted. it's find to put representatives from the major councils on these committees, but they know nothing about accreditation. they weren't elected because of their knowledge of accreditation and the process. there are others who aren't on these major committees who may know more. i hope people are willing to seek them out.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"amy--i don't mean recently. I mean from 95 until now. institutional effectiveness, planning, and assessment have been something we should have dealing with since then. in fact, i am sitting here with a copy of the september "03 compliance report to SACS and it says precisely that. we were told in '95 we had to start. that's why the 5 year period from '97 to '02 was so critical. SACS expected us to be doing things and we didn't. i would have hoped the committees i pointed to would have been asking the question'--what are we doing about this? again, i hope faculty take it upon themselves, particularly those on the major committees of this university, to educate themselves about accreditation. "

Stinky,

I'm a lowly faculty member in a department being evaluated for 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service. I'm being told in more ways than one, "do more research", "get more grants" , you didn't bring in enough money-- no raise for you!--NEXT". Now you tell me that my Provost should have told my Dean to tell my chair that I should have been keeping up with SACS requirements that my President doesn't even know about.

Did I read your post correctly? I'm ready to work, but my leaders are all pointing in different directions. So I will do my job the best I can and when they decide in which direction I should go I will go that way as fast as possible while praying it isn't in the WRONG direction--AGAIN.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"amy--i hope people who know something are consulted. it's find to put representatives from the major councils on these committees, but they know nothing about accreditation. they weren't elected because of their knowledge of accreditation and the process. there are others who aren't on these major committees who may know more. i hope people are willing to seek them out. "

Knowing who many of the most knowledgeable people are, I would like to see the list put together and presented simultaneously to Thames and the media. Shelby will either have to use the excellent faculty resources he has so publicly scorned or tell the media why he is not using them. His arrogance underlies his downfall.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

if you're untenured let others do. but as i've said before, USM didn't get in this predicament overnight. if faculty had been more knowledgeable about accreditation i think questions would have asked much sooner. we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Let the academics govern
"Knowing who many of the most knowledgeable people are, I would like to see the list put together and presented simultaneously to Thames and the media."

First things first. Wouldn't this be putting the cart before the horse?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lowly Faculty
" Stinky, I'm a lowly faculty member in a department being evaluated for 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service. I'm being told in more ways than one, "do more research", "get more grants" , you didn't bring in enough money-- no raise for you!--NEXT". Now you tell me that my Provost should have told my Dean to tell my chair that I should have been keeping up with SACS requirements that my President doesn't even know about. Did I read your post correctly? I'm ready to work, but my leaders are all pointing in different directions. So I will do my job the best I can and when they decide in which direction I should go I will go that way as fast as possible while praying it isn't in the WRONG direction--AGAIN. "

stinky cheese man and Lowly faculty,

I'm a tenured full porfessor and have been getting the same message as Lowly faculty from the administration-- GRANTS nad FUNDING. We even have two evaluations, the on-line Faculty Ativity Report and the departmental annual evaluation. I haven't hear a word about SACS requirements in many years until this week. We haven't done anything in my dapartment on this because the goal has been: research grants and funding.

If Stinky thinks the faculty should have done something or asked question, I wish he would tell us who would have known to ask questions. Amy Young implied that Academic Council didn't know what was going on. As far as the Graduate Council, didn't some administrator do away with the graduate dean and the graduate school. There was and is so much disorganization, faculty and chairs have a hard time keeping up.

I'm with Lowly Faculty, we need some leadership and fast. What do we have to do at the departmental level? If it hasn't been done, what can we do in 12 months?

Date: Dec 11, 2004

i'll admit that my experience with accreditation makes me more sensitive that a lot. but i too have to teach and conduct research. this whole situation made me realize how little the "in-the-trenches" faculty member knows about it, and how much they need to know. grants and funding don't go to unaccredited universities.

as to who knows. there are any number of people who have attended SACS and other conferences where planning and assessment are discussed and workshops presented. if they went to workshops and the like they should have shared information. i know one person did and i think the non-academic side brought in a guy who helped them get their side in order.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

Otherside, LFM, Amy, and others,

If you don't know what your department needs to do for SACS reaccreditation, and bodies like the Academic Council don't know either, there has been an administrative failure of catastrophic proportions. In the run-up to a SACS reaccreditation, there are tons of things for everyone to do. It's hard for anyone to get them done, when they don't know what they are.

The adminsitrator who was put in charge of self-studies and assessment, in preparation for Clemson's reaccreditation, is disliked by many on the faculty as a "company person" who buys into our top administrators' rather unrealistic vision for the future. But she made sure every college, department, university committee, you name it, knew what it needed to do--and made sure that we all knew it years in advance.

Shelby Thames' failure to mobilize USM on this issue back in June 2002--his failure to bring in a competent administrator to coordinate the reaccreditation effort as soon as he walked in the front door of the Dome--constituted sufficient reason, right then and there, to remove him from office.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i'll admit that my experience with accreditation makes me more sensitive that a lot. but i too have to teach and conduct research. this whole situation made me realize how little the "in-the-trenches" faculty member knows about it, and how much they need to know. grants and funding don't go to unaccredited universities. as to who knows. there are any number of people who have attended SACS and other conferences where planning and assessment are discussed and workshops presented. if they went to workshops and the like they should have shared information. i know one person did and i think the non-academic side brought in a guy who helped them get their side in order."

Thanks Stinky. Are the faculty, who attend these SACS meeting or workshops and who "know what is required", members of the CoAL or CoST? I grant that faculty who are on the education side of disciplines in departments in these colleges may have known more than the regular faculty. Were they suppose to direct their chairs to organize committees or do something like collect data? The education person in my department left USM. I don't know what my chair or dean knew. I have been here a while and they are all new (thanks to an administrator reorganizing the university).

Date: Dec 11, 2004

robert--i talked to someone who was at Thames first cabinet meeting where he said (after being told we were in trouble with SACS) that it had to be the number one priority. he thought he put someone in who could do the job. guess he was wrong. I agree with your observation that there is lots of activity that should happen. I began to get concerned when it wasn't happening. Even though the new SACS process was supposed to be streamlined compared to the past, I just had this sense that little was happening.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i talked to someone who was at Thames first cabinet meeting where he said (after being told we were in trouble with SACS) that it had to be the number one priority. he thought he put someone in who could do the job. guess he was wrong. "

An old saw keeps coming to mind: Well done is better than well said. SFT says a lot, but he does damned little.

To say that SACS accreditation is top priority is all well and good. To act as if it is top priority is something entirely different, and something that the Thames administration has obviously neglected to do.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Thanks Stinky. Are the faculty, who attend these SACS meeting or workshops and who "know what is required", members of the CoAL or CoST? I grant that faculty who are on the education side of disciplines in departments in these colleges may have known more than the regular faculty. Were they suppose to direct their chairs to organize committees or do something like collect data? The education person in my department left USM. I don't know what my chair or dean knew. I have been here a while and they are all new (thanks to an administrator reorganizing the university). "

Otherside - go to the USM website and then punch up "Plan for Effectiveness" under the SACs Box. When you get t that page you'll see University Assessment Plans and Reports for 2003-04 and 2004-05 for both Admin and Academic Units. There are plenty of departments that have their materials up -- but if you want to tap into any of the art areas and many of the CoAL areas you'll see som examples.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" Otherside - go to the USM website and then punch up "Plan for Effectiveness" under the SACs Box. When you get t that page you'll see University Assessment Plans and Reports for 2003-04 and 2004-05 for both Admin and Academic Units. There are plenty of departments that have their materials up -- but if you want to tap into any of the art areas and many of the CoAL areas you'll see som examples. "

Thanks Stephen. I thought all of that was being done in preparation for the upcoming SCAS review and had nothing to do with what was suppose to be done from the 1995 review. Now it appears all blended together. I will have to study it closer. Anyway it is enough to confuse both the IHL Board and the press into thinking we will come out OK next December. But I wonder if SACS will think we accomplished out 1995 goals.

Date: Dec 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"Thanks Stephen. I thought all of that was being done in preparation for the upcoming SCAS review and had nothing to do with what was suppose to be done from the 1995 review. Now it appears all blended together. I will have to study it closer. Anyway it is enough to confuse both the IHL Board and the press into thinking we will come out OK next December. But I wonder if SACS will think we accomplished out 1995 goals."

Yes -- I think that is where the confusion has been among many of us. It now does seem as though we were beginning to address the issues of the past review while beginning to work for the upcoming one. I do know that it wasn't entirely clear to me as a faculty member that Iin submitting material for my unit it was ultimately destined for SACs --

Date: Dec 11, 2004

stephen and otherside--institutional effectiveness and its assessment are continuous processes. i guess i am most distressed that faculty did not understand that in '95 SACS accredition philosophy changed to this. i have seen faculty on this board and in the press comment that they thought Joan Exline's job was only to prepare for the next accreditation, when the reality was this process deals with both what we've done in the past (are we in compliance?) and where do we want to go (the Quality Enhancement Plan)? she has to document that we're in compliance and we have an idea of where we want to go.