Faculty Involved in SACS - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 21, 2005

Faculty Involved in SACS

Date: Feb 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
". . . In many cases, however, faculty are teaching out of discipline for legitimate reasons and have an established research record in areas in which they do not have graduate training. In these cases, the problem of validation requires more detailed explanation. As far as I know, there has not been an effort to do this at the college or department level. Does anyone have up-to-date information on this issue and others that would require the departments to provide this information?"

I was going to suggest you check with the folks in ED, but then again you are talking about faculty teaching out of discipline for legitimate reasons who have an established research record in said area. On second thought, don't check with the folks in ED.

Date: Feb 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"I am struck at how little the faculty at USM have been involved in the process......Most of the activity here is happening in secret."

I don't doubt that what you say is true. Even during the previous SACS reaccreditation process I, as an active senior faculty member, was not asked to participate in any shape, form, or fashion. SACS had come and gone before I even knew they were here. Be wary that the forthcoming SACS visitors are not flown in and out and are come and gone before some here realize what is happening. I am not saying this in jest.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"In talking with colleagues at other university that have a SACS visit coming up, I am struck at how little the faculty at USM have been involved in the process. At other universities, few faculty are able to avoid being on one or more committees that are documenting, assessing, and validating activities at the department and college level. Most of the activity here is happening in secret. From what I have heard from other schools is that the written material has to be submitted to SACS several weeks (or months?) before the visit. One of the issues that pop up is the task of validating the credentials of faculty. Often it is just a matter of transcripts showing graduate work where a faculty member in history, for example, has a graduate degree in history with the corresponding graduate course work. In many cases, however, faculty are teaching out of discipline for legitimate reasons and have an established research record in areas in which they do not have graduate training. In these cases, the problem of validation requires more detailed explanation. As far as I know, there has not been an effort to do this at the college or department level. Does anyone have up-to-date information on this issue and others that would require the departments to provide this information?"

As a faculty member heavily involved in SACS at USM, I would not characterize the process of reaffirmation as necessarily secretive. I would suggest, however, that many who were chosen to serve on various committees are beholden to or perhaps supportive of the Thames regime. Many of these folks are staff, or untenured faculty.

We do have some issues with faculty credentials. This is especially true regarding graduate teaching and credentials of chairs, directors, and program coordinators who, by SACS standards, should have terminal degrees in their areas.

Regarding transcripts, it seems that at least some faculty transcripts have been "misplaced" and several folks have had to send off for another copy (at their own expense, I might add). I don't know how many transcripts have been lost in HR, though.

As we approach our deadlines, the paperwork and justification for teaching, directing, chairing, out of discipline will be reviewed.

Hope this helps.

Amy Young

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Amy,

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"In talking with colleagues at other university that have a SACS visit coming up, I am struck at how little the faculty at USM have been involved in the process. "

Why do you think we are on probation in the first place? It is because of certain faculty members and former faculty input to the SACS. Why don't you question some of the faculty senate members and SACS about what letters and anonymous email they got before SACS came around to do its inspection?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Albert
" Why do you think we are on probation in the first place? It is because of certain faculty members and former faculty input to the SACS. Why don't you question some of the faculty senate members and SACS about what letters and anonymous email they got before SACS came around to do its inspection?"

Albert, my friend, if I had been given the opportunity to write or talk to SACS they would have heard an earful and seen an eyeful. Are you suggesting that the faculty be muzzled and that the university engage in some gigantic cover up? Whether you like it or not, the faculty members are the experts. They also have an obligation to be truthful.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Albert
"

Why do you think we are on probation in the first place? It is because of certain faculty members and former faculty input to the SACS. Why don't you question some of the faculty senate members and SACS about what letters and anonymous email they got before SACS came around to do its inspection?"

Interesting. I didn't know USM folks did very much email in 1995.

I think this has been stated before, but every indication is that USM's 1995 SACS self-study was okay, with some recommendations that were satisfactorily addressed during the one-year follow-up period that most institutions (including USM in 1995) "enjoy" right after a SACS committee visit.

The current problems appear to have arisen, because institutional effectiveness & planning got dropped during the transition from the Fleming administration to the Thames administration. I can do the math -- and it's not technical & it's not rocket science: the 5th year focused report was postponed so that SFT could get into office & when the report was submitted, it was judged insufficient by SACS, as were the subsequent follow-ups that were requested. Hence, USM got placed on probation & in spite of all the attempts to pass this off as "something that happened ten years ago," the key events that triggered the probation happened on Shelby Thames' watch.

IMHO -- and it is studied -- the primary single event that led to the probation was the administrative disjuncture that occurred when Fleming was canned. Thames has made a concerted effort to retain as few people on the administration (at any level) as possible & that lack of "institutional memory" came back & bit the entire university on the glutes.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

I should add that one way to really gets SACS' negative attention is to eliminate the Institutional Research Office, which was one of Shelby's first actions. We often don't mention that in the "litany of stupidity"™ but it was a major event.

Institutions that don't attend to institutional research or that attempt to use extremely "distributed" models for institutional research usually have trouble with SACS.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"I should add that one way to really gets SACS' negative attention is to eliminate the Institutional Research Office, which was one of Shelby's first actions. We often don't mention that in the "litany of stupidity"™ but it was a major event. Institutions that don't attend to institutional research or that attempt to use extremely "distributed" models for institutional research usually have trouble with SACS."

I have often wondered if USM had an IR office. Why am I not surprised that Shelby killed it?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" I have often wondered if USM had an IR office. Why am I not surprised that Shelby killed it? "

Can anyone explain the "logic" behind this move?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

I don't recall seeing any USM faculty names on the letters sent to USM FROM SACS, I believe that was sent directly to Mr. Thames. One of the most valuable things that SACS does is to talk to campus personnel who are NOT administration and actually get a feel for what is going on on campus and how things are panning out. Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, can make something look great on paper -- there are some rather creative minds out there -- but to actually get a feel for what is happening on a campus, the SACS team talks to the folks and THEN they call a spade a spade.

I'm not at USM but I have worked on SACS before and trust me, a team can smell a dead rat 100 miles away.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

invictus--you and i agree to disagree a bit on this. I see our problems having started 10 years with little assessment and evaluation taking place. (and SACS told us we should start then!) we change our core curriculum in about 1999 with absolutely no assessment of the old core curriculum. (if it ain't broke, why fix it?) we should have been gearing up for the new SACS process and didn't really. after Henry stepped down, we had an interim provost for two more years. then a year with Lucas. then Thames. the series of administrative changes and assessment inertia contributed a lot to the problems we're in.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"after Henry stepped down, we had an interim provost for two more years. then a year with Lucas. then Thames. the series of administrative changes and assessment inertia contributed a lot to the problems we're in. "

In my discipline, program instability is sometimes used to put the program on probation. Continued program instability can be used to jerk the accreditation entirely. You suggest that USM has experienced administrative instability for many years. That, plus the fact that things appear to be instable now, is not a good omen.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Albert
" Why do you think we are on probation in the first place? It is because of certain faculty members and former faculty input to the SACS. Why don't you question some of the faculty senate members and SACS about what letters and anonymous email they got before SACS came around to do its inspection?"

Albert --

Most people on this Board know I am not one to make personal attacks or resort to personal invective. But I'm sorry Albert that you are such an idiot.

Cut the BS and say what you mean -- Instead of "certain" faculty, "some" of the senate members and other ambiguous language that completely allows you to avoid responsbility or accountability -- go ahead and name names. If not, then please shut up.

Otherwise, you are just throwing oleaginous rumor on a fire.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Albert
"

Why do you think we are on probation in the first place? It is because of certain faculty members and former faculty input to the SACS. Why don't you question some of the faculty senate members and SACS about what letters and anonymous email they got before SACS came around to do its inspection?"

You still haven't provided one solitary bit of a positive case for Shelby Thames.

But now you're insinuating that USM is on probation because faculty members manipulated SACS into it?

If you knew anything about accreditation processes, you would know how loony your insinuation is.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" You still haven't provided one solitary bit of a positive case for Shelby Thames."

What are you afraid of, Albert? Why are you reluctant to explain your support for Shelby?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

"Most people on this Board know I am not one to make personal attacks or resort to personal invective. But I'm sorry Albert that you are such an idiot."

Now that's calling a spade a spade!

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Interesting. I didn't know USM folks did very much email in 1995. I think this has been stated before, but every indication is that USM's 1995 SACS self-study was okay . . . "

Well, I first used email in 1985, when I provided my own computer (used in my USM office), but back then we were using the Bitnet link at Tulane. Around 1988 or 1989, the university got connected to the SURANet backbone, and we got "true" email capability.

Of course, this was long before John McGowan and Horace Fleming created OTR, which morphed into iTech.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Interesting. I didn't know USM folks did very much email in 1995. <snip> "

Vic, I can vouch that they did. I came on board as a staff member at USM in August 1995 and received my very first work email account then. It was before OTR was in existence...I think we were still under "Academic Computing" or something like that. It was before I saw the Internet w/color and graphics...it was all in black and white (imagine that!). We had to use our phone lines to dial up, too...and that was mighty annoying as I recall. I also remember the Bitnet accounts when I was a grad student...I had one in 1990 and used it to "talk" to a friend of mine at Tulane. I thought it was the most marvelous invention...who knew?

Now, I sound like an old timer!

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd via interested bystander
"" But I'm sorry Albert that you are such an idiot."

I think that's correctly spelled "idot" when referring to one of Mr. Albert's caliber.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

i know we had email by '87. a person i knew was editing book reviews for a scholarly journal and had authors submit themn via email. but i tell my students i remember writing and editing my dissertation before there were pc's. and think about the real old geezers who had to make copies of their dissertation before there were xerox machines!

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"invictus--you and i agree to disagree a bit on this."

I can dig that.

However, the fact remains that USM's 1995 self-study (and whatever follow-up was required) was judged acceptable by SACS & the institution was reaffirmed. There was no "you have to file a monitoring report" sort of thing attached to that self-study.

I'm not saying that the Fleming administration or the Lucas interim didn't have something to do with delaying the development of a decent institutional effectiveness system at USM.

But Shelby Thames was supposed to be qualified to be a university president & anyone coming into the presidency of a SACS accredited institution ought to be asking "What are we doing about institutional effectiveness?" right off the bat.

A lot of new presidents get all hot-to-trot about developing a new & improved strategic plan & assessment program. It's a great P.R. opportunity & it helps to get faculty to "buy-in" to the new administration. Not Shelby. He delegated the SACS 5th year report to a relatively young, inexperienced administrator (Bond) & all evidence suggests that Thames was then pretty disinterested in the whole thing.

Now, what kind of message does that send out to faculty & line administration?

Yes, Shelby's probably "interested" (at least superficially) in the process now that the university's regional accreditation is at stake, but it sure doesn't look like he was all that worried when he passed the two "DANGER AHEAD" signs. (He claims he didn't see them or understand that's what they were.)

Folks, there are no more warning signs. The next milestone is the cliff. Faculty may choose to step aside & say, "See? Shelby ran us over a cliff." That's their right & privilege, I suppose, but I have three degrees from USM that would go over that cliff.

I have the utmost respect for those on the USM faculty who are working hard on the SACS issue in spite of Shelby Thames.

<FOOTNOTE>
Please note that I did not accuse SCM of being a troll, mole, or Old King Cole. That's because what he's saying about SACS & the current probation work is sound. We just have very different perspectives & he's a lot closer to the "trees" than I.
</FOOTNOTE>

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
" i tell my students i remember writing and editing my dissertation before there were pc's. and think about the real old geezers who had to make copies of their dissertation before there were xerox machines!"

With tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek, I must ask, "Who are you calling geezer, sonny?" Be sure to speak up, because us oldtimers don't hear so well anymore (thanks to all the campus construction).

I remember sniffing the purple ink mimeograph copies back in school.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

ah, a newly run exam--a ditto fluid high. remember the old days!

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"ah, a newly run exam--a ditto fluid high. remember the old days!"

Oh yes...oh yes...

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"ah, a newly run exam--a ditto fluid high. remember the old days!"

I remember the purple ditto fluid high, too. It's official, I'm old! (No surprise to the little Truths, who remind me that the 80s "were a loooong time ago, Mom!" whenever we listen to music in the car!).

Date: Feb 22, 2005

yeah folks--invictus agree to disagree a lot. he doesn't hurt my feelings. i was glad to see your comment about going over a cliff, because that would be the logical conclusion if we don't get off probation. i worry a bit because some posters don't seem to realize that by a year from december (realistically earlier) SACS is going to "fish or cut bait" with USM.

was talking with someone on one of the committees and some things that committees are racing to do could have been done much earlier. but they weren't started. but from what i've heard the committees (particularly compliance) are working hard and will do a good job.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"
I have often wondered if USM had an IR office. Why am I not surprised that Shelby killed it?
"

If I remember correctly, Dr. Pisani returned to changed locks, etc. etc. Perhaps this is correct corporate practice but it is certainly strange in a university.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

USM has one. that's one job i wouldn't want. swimming in a sea of data and requests for data.