If USM loses accreditation or receives extended probation, it will most definitely not be the faculty's fault. The faculty seems to be doing everything it can do. But few are listining. The IHL in particular does not seem to be listening. The overwhelming mass of alumni are deafeningly  silent. I fail to understand how those constituencies can sleep. Mississippi's academic debacle of the century will be recorded for posterity. If I were an IHL board member I would not want this on my hands for everybody to read about for years to come.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"If not off probation at that point, USM will effectively shut down. Faculty and staff will be effectively unemployed. "

---

That is when one of those green historical markers will be placed at a Hattiesburg highway exit: TWO MILES FROM THIS MARKER WAS ONCE A GREAT UNIVERSITY THAT WAS KILLED THROUGH THE BENIGN NEGLECT OF ITS GOVENING BOARD.

i've had too many colleagues at USM and read too many posters on this message board who don't understand the process very well, if at all, and don't understand that we can't be on probation for a long time. There is a "drop-dead" deadline for SACS. Whether ST or someone else is president makes no difference to SACS. There is work to be done to save USM. (I personally believe that we'll get off probation, but no thanks to ST.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" If that happens, it won't be "benign" neglect. It will have happened because the governing board wanted it to happen."

---

So how about this for the marker? TWO MILES FROM THIS MARKER WAS ONCE A GREAT UNIVERSITY THAT WAS KILLED BY DELIBERATE DESIGN BY  ITS GOVENING BOARD.

Sorry but USM will not ever lose SACs accreditation.  Look to the west into LA.  Yeah yeah I know we don't want to compare USM to any LA university.  But the facts are that Univ. of Louisiana at Monroe and Grambling State Univ. have been down the probation path to fear of losing SAC's accreditation with problems that can be compared to that at USM.  SAC's bent over backwards year after year and kept the probation going even longer than their standards allow for with each of these instituions.  Both finally have had SAC accreditation fully restored.  Did both go through darkness?  Of course.  Did both lose presidents and other administrators - yes.  Did they lose SAC's accreditation - No!

Will USM and its alumni wish the IHL board had acted more like the LA governing board - yes.  But a long, stress-filled time could be ahead for Southern Miss.  But it will survive.

Do the research and find out about the two universities named above.  ULM's prez at the time was bought and paid for by the athletic supporters and he now teaches part time at Southeast LA to allow him to get his retirement time in their system.  Not a bad deal for an athlete, lawyer, state senator, and appointed a university prez. 

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"(I personally believe that we'll get off probation, but no thanks to ST.)"

---

I hope you're right about USM getting off probation. From what I gather, there are some smart people working very hard to "solve" the problems.

Sadly, while it may be "no thanks to ST," I'm afraid he'll be able to take full credit when USM does get off probation. I just hope someone on the IHL board has a random encounter with common sense & recognizes the truth.

business sense--just educated myself about the ULM and Grambling State situations. Knew some of the details of the problems, needed to see what SACS did. Grambing got two years on probation--no more. That's all we will get. ULM's problems started after they were reaffirmed--they could get more than two years because they weren't on probation. So although their problems are like ours in ways, the time frame still stands--12/2006.

Assuming that the time frame for being on probation is as stated in this thread, SACS and the IHL Board now appear to be in a battle of "who blinks first?" SACS is constrained by its procedural rules on the length of time an institution can be on probation. USM and the IHL Board are trying to run out the clock betting that USM is "too big to fail." We do not have a handicapper to give us the betting odds. I would have to think that the experience and expertise of SACS would give them the highest odds of winning. SACS has been through this game situation before, and likely is aware of the box that their rules put them in cases where the institution is being defiant. SFT and the Board have a history of acting first and finding out the rules later. Does anyone know of a case where SACS, or a similar accrediting body, was forced to back down and let the President, and the governing board, walk away intact with a victory? Perhaps we have someone with expertise who can give us the odds on the outcome.

SACS doesn't back down. (Let me add, that our fate will really be decided by a group of faculty/administrators from other universities in the SACS area. The people actually at SACS in Atlanta do not speak for SACS. They are only employees of the institutions that are members of SACS.) Last night I reviewed press stories about Grambling and Louisiana-Monroe. Their circumstances were different than ours in ways, but no better than ours. In fact, as I read the ULM case, they were in a worse circumstance than us in some ways (they got caught lying to SACS for one) and Grambling was pretty bad. Both are now in good graces with SACS. That's the reason I am optimistic we'll get off probation.

as SACS would say, both USM and SACS have to play the hand we're dealt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Angeline
"Here's an inside view of the attempt to get USM through the SACS reaccreditation process:
The SACS consultant now on campus is astounded (to put it mildly) at the lack of knowledge from Exline, Hamilton, and other Administrators about what SACS requires.  She had SACS manuals passed out to everyone on the QEP Committee yesterday - yesterday! - because USM is starting the process from rock bottom and exhibiting no awareness of how SACS works or what is required of a university to establish goals and measurements to be in SACS compliance.  This Administration simply has no idea what they are doing when it comes to SACS and they are all learning from scratch - can we say unqualified?  Anyway, USM may make it through SACS because of the Georgia-based consultant being here to line everyone up and assign duties.  This is Shelby's "efficiency" at work: paying Exline and Hamilton tens of thousands dollars more than the average professor when they do not know a thing about what they are doing.  Lovely."

---

Do we have any "average professors" (your words, not mine) that know anything about SACS compliance that would be willing to take on the task of working on this daunting project while still continuing to carry their regular workload? I happen to know that Hamiltion and Exline are still responsible for many of their previous job responsibilities in addition to this, so it's not as if all their other tasks where dropped so they could soley focus on this. I can assure you this is not a picnic for them.

Has Amy served on a SACs committee before and if so? Frankly, I think she should demand to do so again. We are in dire need of her help. If we have someone with previous experience in our midst, we must utilize their skills. Amy should notify the SACS representative on campus and perhaps they will insist on her inclusion on this task.

amy is on a committee, but didn't know much, if anything, about SACS and its processes before she was put on the task. there are others who have been involved in the past, attended workshops and conferences, and the like who are also involved. The SACS consultant had heard from colleagues in Atlanta about 1 or 2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: donald
"One thing I do know, and USM has apparently not recognized it.  THIS IS A DIFFERENT SACS than dealt with those California institutions.  SACS is bearing down hard in the fact of a threat from the Feds that if SACS and other regional accrediting bodies do not do a better job of policing their own territori the FEDS WILL STEP IN and take control.  The leadership in USDOE want nothing more.  SO you can bet this is a new ballgame.  We ignore it at our own risk.  This aint' your old SACS.  This is the new aggressive, in-your-face SACS and USM provides them the perfect vehicle for dealing a death blow.  Frankly, I think it is going to happen because this is the most blatant disregard of the rules of the academy many have ever witnessed.  The university is divided; the community is divided; the IHL is not leading.  Perfect for a death penalty.  Don't bank on the old dismissal, "AW shucks, never happen."  We may well see it happen."

---

It is good to think this way if it inspires people to work harder. But if it just discourages people, then it is not good to think this way. SACS can go with a second year of probation without going against its own rules. USM should not expect an extension beyond that point. Nor should it receive one. If the institution has no leadership at all, at the top or at the grassroots & if the governing board sees no reason to remedy that situation, then the institution probably shouldn't exist.

A point of correction: SACS does not accredit institutions in California.