I've been taking a look at the so-called Strategic Goals that are posted proudly on the USM website under "Institutional Effectiveness" (sorry, but from what I've seen that's almost an oxymoron) and find that these are an amazingly inept excuse for strategic planning. I find it difficult to believe that someone would actually attempt to pass these off as a strategic plan.

The intent of strategic planning is to develop a sense of value for each member of the institution and to develop an idea of what the institution should do to fulfill the mission. This is the opportunity for members to buy in to the direction the institution NEEDS to go. It is chockfull of opportunity for assessment, evaluation, and revision to be responsive to the changing environment.

It appears that whoever had a hand in writing these didn't have a clue about strategic planning. I would encourage the writer to inquire about strategic planning at the following website: http://www.nonprofits.org/npofaq/03/22.html 

It is my understanding that the next SACS visit for USM is in 2006. Does anyone know what the QEP will address?

I believe I recall reading that Dr. Exline is forming a leadership committee, QEP committee and another committee (I don't recall what it is) to deal with this. If the visit is in Spring 2006, that would mean that 6 weeks prior to that (probably January) will be when the electronic submission of the accreditation criteria will be due. So that would be probably November of 2005. Usually, and this is recommended by SACS, it is about a 2 year process with the culmination being the site visit. From my calculations and from what I've gathered, USM would currently be about a year behind. That is what I've gathered from reading on this board and from the website. I may be off here, but if this offered strategic plan is what is being used to develop the responses for the principles of accrediation get ready to get slammed by the accreditation teams.

After what is going on now, it would be difficult for SACS not to be concerned about where the institution appears to be heading and to attempt to get the university to tighten things up. SACS won't do it for USM, this is a process and everyone in the institution has to be a part of the process. It seems everyone's been locked out of the process and that would be because the administration is SCARED about what conclusions the process would reveal. Strong, true leadership NEEDS to know what is going on so that it may lead effectively. If it doesn't know what's going on, it can only manage dysfunctionally.

The real scare is the possibility of "NO SACS FOR YOU."