This was on the Faculty Senate Listserv:

Colleagues:

Below you will find an account that is an analysis of the timeline of USM submissions to SACs and how one person (who claims to be very knowledgeable about the SACs process) interprets it. Perhaps some of you more familiar with the process than I might be able to help clarify . . . This is from the AAUP message Board

Begin quote:

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 communication) 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