Good HA Editorial on Saturday - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 18, 2004

Good HA Editorial on Saturday

Date: Dec 18, 2004

Forgive me for not being more informed on this, but I know some of Shelby's supporters claimed that accreditation problems went back 10 years. Perhaps even Shelby claimed this?

Does the revelation of these SACS letters once and for all prove that the problem only began under Thames' watch?

Date: Dec 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"They are starting to get it. http://hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041218/OPINION01/412180314/1014/OPINION"

"Did Thames grasp depth of problem?"

I don't understand why the IHL Board is so surprised that SFT didn't notice the warning from SACS. The IHL Board has been given numerous warnings that SFT's presidency would lead to a disastrous situation for USM and yet they ignored the warnings. How many signals must the Faculty Senate, faculty, staff, media and public send to this Klumb board before they take heed?

Date: Dec 18, 2004

Fire Shelby,

One of the desperate excuses that Thames/Mader/Exline resorted to was the "4 year gap" in correspondence with SACS, from 1997 to 2001.

That turned out to be completely bogus. There wasn't any correspondence in the files because USM was sending SACS annual reports and SACS was satisfied with them.

The Fleming administration may have been a good distance short of optimal in its handling of institutional assessment. scm, among others, has suggested that. But it never displayed anything like Thames' gross negligence.

In fact, it's hard to think of another state university president, even among the really lousy managers, who has taken as cavalier an attitude toward SACS accreditation as SFT has.

Robert Campbell