Truth, where did this "timeline" come from? Is this constructed by USM PR, or is it the result of HA's investigative reporting?

NO QUARTER.
Anne

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"david beckett in another HA story refers to a timeline or chronology. it appears it was handed out at the 2:30 meeting yesterday afternoon. i bet it comes from USM."

---

I agree with SCM...I think it was constructed by SFT & Co.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the inimitable truth4usm/AH
"I agree with SCM...I think it was constructed by SFT & Co."

---

Then they sho' ain't very smart, ma'am.

It looks pretty clear that in the fall of 2002 Shelby Thames was very aware that there were some big deficiencies in USM's compliance with SACS requirements. This jives with the two year monitoring period that ended with the current probation.

It's pretty evident from his comments that SFT simply didn't find the whole SACS thing very interesting. What sort of university president doesn't want to look at the strategic plans for academic units or see at least a summary of assessment results? Well, not our Shelby. He was too busy hiring his buddies, firing his enemies & playing economic development games.

University of Southern Mississippi President Shelby Thames said Friday that he and an assistant have scoured files of previous administrators and have found a four-year gap in documentation on accreditation.

As Watson used to say, "No , Sherlock." Isn't it strange that the documentation is absent for Fleming's term of office & the Lucas interim? How utterly convenient.

One way to achieve such a four year gap is to simply pitch all your predecessor's files.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"University of Southern Mississippi President Shelby Thames said Friday that he and an assistant have scoured files of previous administrators and have found a four-year gap in documentation on accreditation. As Watson used to say, "No , Sherlock." Isn't it strange that the documentation is absent for Fleming's term of office & the Lucas interim? How utterly convenient. One way to achieve such a four year gap is to simply pitch all your predecessor's files."

---

Wasn't there a van from a shredding service seen outside the Dome this past spring???

Inquiring minds want to know...

Truth,

There was one most certainly.  I think some people on campus have pictures of it too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i talked to someone who saw the SACS file about 18 months ago. i specifically asked whether there was material from 1997-2001 and they couldn't remember. could remember the letter from Lucas in 1996(?) that asked for a delay because of a new president. said the file was filled with documentation. also said the file wasn't in a secure place. not in the president's office nor the provost's. ran invictus's theory past them and said it was possible. also had another alternative. given the file wasn't in a secure place a former provost could have sent someone over to see it. takes it to the provost. if your aim is to undermind a president and you know (because it's post 2002) that we're in trouble with SACS and the previous administration didn't do much but you want to hide that fact and make the present president look bad, you or one of your minions shred the evidence. "

---

The T. H. surprise package was empty?  What a package!!

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Bug on the Floor
"If we were making progress after the satisfactory report Dr. Lucas sent to SACS it is possible that there were no relevant documents during the period.  If no reports were due during those years would one expect to find documents in the files?  Perhaps someone with more SACS experience can inform us.  "

---

Bingo!

Let me try to reinterpret the timeline (with my own brand of spin)...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1995 - SACS site visit.

October 1995 - USM submitted Institutional Response (on schedule)

January 1996 - SACS requested follow-up report by Oct '96 (standard procedure)

October 1996 - USM submitted follow-up report (on schedule)

December 1996 - SACS approved follow-up report, USM reaffirmed (on schedule)

January 1997 - SACS notified USM that 5th year report was due in 2002 (standard procedure)

---- FLEMING TAKES OFFICE ----
1997-2001 - No reports are due, USM files institutional profiles annually (standard procedure)

--> Comment: This is not a 4-year gap. Very simply, no reports were due.


---- FLEMING LEAVES OFFICE / LUCAS INTERIM ----
April 2002 - SACS sends reminder about 5th year report (standard procedure), Lucas requests extension due to presidential change.

May 2002 - SACS grants extension due to new president coming in (standard procedure)

---- THAMES TAKES OFFICE ----

The next one is important -->>

JUNE 24, 2002 - BRAD BOND WROTE MEMO TO GRIFFIN & THAMES THAT USM WAS "NOT NOW IN COMPLIANCE"

Thames knew two years ago that USM was in noncompliance, contrary to what he says in paper now.

September 2002 - USM submits 5th year report (on schedule with extension)

September 2002 - Thames meets with Dr Rogers of SACS (further indicating that he was aware that something was not right with the report)

December 2002 - SACS does not approve 5th year report, requests progress report (standard procedure. At this point, USM is "on notice" & the 2-year clock starts ticking)

September 2003 - USM submits 1st progress report (on schedule)

(Not on timeline, but obvious: December 2003 - SACS judges 1st follow-up insufficient.)

January 2004 - SACS officially requests 2nd progress report (standard procedure)

March 2004 - Thames requests status report (internal communciation) Further indication that he was aware that things weren't kosher.

September 2004 - Exline receives 2nd progress report from Bond, deans freak out. USM submits 2nd progress report. (on schedule)

December 2004 - SACS places USM on academic probation with "good cause" (meaning time ran out & USM was able to justify an extension)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

First, it is obvious from the timeline that Thames was aware shortly after (if not before) he took office that the university was in noncompliance with accreditation standards.

Second, it is interesting that "Dr Bond" (rather than the university) submitted the progress reports, according to the timeline. Are we to believe that Brad Bond acted on his own & submitted these reports without approval from the president? If he did, why did the president not want to see these reports? (At every institution where I've worked, these reports are submitted under the president's signature.)

Finally, all the reports appear to have been filed on schedule. This is not a reporting problem, as has been widely suggested by the Thames administration. The reports were in fact filed. The comments in the timeline document regarding the deans' reaction at the September 17, 2004, meeting suggests that the problem was not failure to report but failure to report anything of substance.

The only report that was filed late was the 5th year report & SACS granted a courtesy extension for that report due to the administrative transition.

This means that at least two parts of the current spin -- that Thames was unaware that there were problems & that reports weren't filed on time -- appear to be utter fabrications.

GRATIS ADVICE: DO NOT LIE TO THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wow!
"If your timeline analysis is correct these data, in the orderly manner you presented them, should be made available to the press and to others."

---

Everything in this timeline came straight out of the PDF file on the Hattiesburg American website. All I added was the "on schedule" & "standard procedure" notes based on my knowledge of how an accreditation cycle works. There are dozens of people at USM who know this, too. Amazing that the president isn't one of them.

I was here in 1995 and I didn't even know there was a SACS visit at that time. The visit must have been kept under wraps in our unit. I heretofore thought that a SACS visit was a big thing. I get the distinct impression that there was not full participation in the spirit of SACS. No bashing, please. I am talking only about my unit. Your unit may have fully participated. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"invictus--what do you conclude from your final line? i read the final report. we were supposed to be doing things from the final report on. we may not have to report, but we were supposed to be addressing issues. at midpoint. we were expected to report on how we were dealing with such issues. documentation is critical for SACS. "

---

You are, as usual, correct Mr. Cheese Man.

There should be an office filled with lateral filing cabinets stuffed with annual planning forms from every department & administrative office on campus going back for years. My institution uses a "modified 5-column form" paper system & just the departmental goals & assessment forms took about 4' of lateral file space each year until we decided to simply save the forms as Word files. A lot of schools use online database systems now, just to save space & make retrieval & summarization easier. I believe Dr. Exline's plan calls for such a set up. It is a good idea.

My final line was meant to suggest that the worst thing this administration can do is start lying to SACS like it lies to the press. Lying to SACS or presenting falsified documentation is the worst possible thing that an institution can do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"(i could tell interesting stories about USM administrative subordinates going to SACS and their meeting attendance--it's part of where the problem began. but that's another day). "

---

Oh do tell. We are all ears.

nothing scandalous--i guess. this coming from someone who was quoted in a national enquirer article. some found important meetings (like dates and deadlines) too early to go to (7:00 a.m.). some found a book more interesting to read than the material being presented. I said on this thread or another that this material can be mind-numbing--not at all as interesting as research or a good novel, but if you're going to be involved in this process you have to try and make a positive impact, and that means going to panels and meetings that you normally wouldn't.