students can sue IHL - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 17, 2004

students can sue IHL

Date: Dec 17, 2004

law and any other interested people--read the SACS materials on closing an institution and the teach-out agreement.

here's the link: http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/close%20inst%20teach%20out.pdf

Date: Dec 17, 2004

closing an institution is NOT the same as loss of accreditation. We all know many institutions that lack accreditation. Presumably loss of accreditation will be temporary and closing the institution is not in any event likely any time soon. Regardless, real cash damages are at stake in terms of degree value, employment requirements, etc not just financial aid and all of the suits based on cash damages rest on one premise: loss of accreditation is the fault of IHL lack of oversight. Lawyers have settled if not won cases on far, far less grounds than one sees coming down the road here

Date: Dec 17, 2004

in the context of SACS, closing an institution it means it lost its accreditation.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: law
"When, not if, USM loses its accreditation, any student who loses their financial aid can sue the IHL for cash damages based on that loss and any other fees. Given the two letters from January 04, the no-confidence votes, and the precedent of a similar SACS school, Auburn, the students would have a strong case. Be forewarned IHL. "

Were I the IHL, I'd be less concerned about students who lose their financial aid as those of us who have incurred $30,000 in debt for a degree from a potentially non-accredited institution. If the state thinks if is a billion dollars in the hole now, wait until some of us start lining up to sue the IHL board, the university, Shelboo personally, and a host of others. Based on his address to the graduates last Spring, perhaps the governor can pray for a solution.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: To the TOP?!?
" Were I the IHL, I'd be less concerned about students who lose their financial aid as those of us who have incurred $30,000 in debt ..."

Or more. Much more.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

If the university did lose accreditation and close down, I believe that it would be relatively easy to demonstrate in a court of law that there has been mismanagement at one level or the other. Tenured faculty members, I believe, have a propriety interest in their positions here. One would hope that they would be in a position to receive compensation for any damage done to their proprietary interests.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

Not to beat a dying soon to be dead horse but loss of accreditation does not mean anyone closes down. It does mean, however, that the damages are real and that the lawsuits can begin with serious cash damages in courts both state and federal. So, again, I hope the IHL knows what the hell it is doing because this is america after all and lawsuits need far less excuse to see their day in court or huge cash settlements.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

Someone needs to raise this possibility in letters to the editor -- especially in letters to the CL, which is presumably read by people in the legislature and governor's office. The clearest argument the university could make in court that it had done its best to forestall loss of accreditation would be evidence that it had immediately sacked the man who has admitted (even if insincerely and insufficiently) his ultimate responsibility.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"in the context of SACS, closing an institution it means it lost its accreditation. "

Not exactly correct, SCM. The SACS "teach out" section is primarily there to cover institutions that close, regardless of their accreditation status. Just based on my limited viewpoint, but a lot of institutions that close are smaller, private colleges that simply end up with insufficient funds to maintain their programs. The seldom go on probation -- they are cited by SACS, put on notice & cease to exist. The "teach out" rules allow these colleges to take care of their students.

An institution that loses accreditation does not necessarily close, although practically speaking, a large public institution is so dependent on federal money that it would be inconceivable that a loss of accreditation wouldn't close its doors ... or trigger a massive reorganization.

You can check with your friend at SACS, SCM, but I can't recall a single public university losing accreditation in the 15-odd years (and some were very odd) that I've been following the Commission on Colleges. I think the worst case scenario for USM would be a 2-year probation.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

Invictus,

Well, were the other public universities that avoided losing accreditation as badly managed as USM?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 17, 2004

you're right about the public university aspect. none have closed. most that close are small, private institutions. i also agree i think we probably face a two year probation. my friend at SACS says that SACS doesn't really want to close institutions, they want to work with them (particularly when they are already accredited) to help retain accreditation. removing their accreditation is truly a measure of last resort.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

robert--my friend at SACS could tell some stories about management. he'll never reveal the name of the college or university, but he has seen some good ones. it's unbelievable. on a more public basis, look at the problem UT-Knoxville had with its president and presidential search.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"you're right about the public university aspect. none have closed. most that close are small, private institutions. i also agree i think we probably face a two year probation. my friend at SACS says that SACS doesn't really want to close institutions, they want to work with them (particularly when they are already accredited) to help retain accreditation. removing their accreditation is truly a measure of last resort."

SCM, I personally think that the larger question here is not: will USM lose accreditation or not? Right now, the larger question is: why does SFT think that faculty are willing to give him countless hours of work (not just "a day's work for a day's pay" but much, much more) when all he has done is berate them (see many quotes from SFT and Klumb over the past year)? AND to top it all off, he is asking them to help a problem that HE HIMSELF CREATED DUE TO HIS OWN MISMANAGEMENT! This only adds insult to injury, IMHO. Don't you think that this is the real nut that SFT needs to crack? If he had half a brain (which I doubt more and more each day), he would be on his knees begging faculty members to give him a second (third? fourth? zillionth?) chance and asking them very nicely to help him out of his situation. Of course, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

truth--i think the bigger question is accreditation or not. your observations about what Thames ought to do and whether faculty are willing to do what is going to be needed are on the mark. i hope people realize that without accreditation we stand to lose the institution that i've (and others as well) have spent too much sweat equity trying to improve. i think (or am maybe wishfully thinking) that the IHL will dump him after this is all over. he has no political capital with the board (except maybe Klumb). i know enough upper level administrators and staffers and they're getting worn out by this.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"truth--i think the bigger question is accreditation or not. your observations about what Thames ought to do and whether faculty are willing to do what is going to be needed are on the mark. i hope people realize that without accreditation we stand to lose the institution that i've (and others as well) have spent too much sweat equity trying to improve. i think (or am maybe wishfully thinking) that the IHL will dump him after this is all over. he has no political capital with the board (except maybe Klumb). i know enough upper level administrators and staffers and they're getting worn out by this. "

SCM, I agree w/you that losing accreditation *is* the larger issue overall, but I subscribe to Invictus' theory that it just won't happen (perhaps I'm being naive!). I do believe that USM will do whatever it takes (scraping by with a "C," most likely) to ease out of probation. So, I suppose a better way to put my statement would be to say that for the long run, SFT has a larger problem to contend with than simply the SACS probation (though I know that's what's most prominently on his addled mind right now). He needs to repair relations with his faculty post haste. Remarks like the ones he gave to the HA disparaging the Faculty Senate's attempts to get Joan Exline to the next Senate meeting just underscore his continuing cluelessness about this issue. Unless he plans on teaching numerous sections of English Comp himself, he needs to get right with the faculty now.

Date: Dec 17, 2004

truth--absolutely true on the getting right with the faculty. i also agree with invictus that we'll slide by with a "C", but i have my days. I don't think he can get right with a lot of the faculty. i don't think he can get right with some administrators who want to make this place an excellent university, who have to endure some of his embarrassing comments. i hope he has run out of political capital with the IHL and they realize his liability as a president. but as I said on another thread--they hired him.