The following is a list of actions on the part of the Thames administration that we feel are potentially jeopardizing our accreditation.  This list is not exhaustive, but meant to illustrate that for the most part, two themes have emerged that have put USM at accreditation risk.  These are shared governance and integrity.

1. Restructuring of the University, forming new colleges, moving programs was accomplished without following the procedures.  Departmental curriculum committees, college curriculum committees, deans, Academic Council, and Graduate Council were all bypassed in this decision.  This is in violation of SACS principles 3.4.1 and 3.4 12.


2. Restructuring which moved Fashion Merchandising from the newly formed College of Arts and Letters (CoAL) to the newly formed College of Business and Economic Development (CBED) was accomplished without following procedures.  The CoAL curriculum committee was not given a chance to address this move, and Academic Council and Graduate Council were completely bypassed.  This is in violation of SACS principles 3.4.1 and 3.4.12.


3. Restructuring which split the Department of Economic Development, which was in CBED into two separate departments: Department of Economic and Workforce Development and International Development (IDV) was accomplished without following procedures.  The Department of Economic and Workforce Development was moved into the College of Science and Technology (CST) and was essentially a merger with the Department of Workforce Training.  IDV was merged into Political Science without consultation with the chair of that department and without the entire faculty involved in the decision.  CBED changed its name to College of Business (COB).  The CoAL curriculum committee was not involved in the decision-making process, and Academic and Graduate Councils were completely bypassed, in violation of SACS 3.4.1 and 3.4.12.


4. President Shelby F. Thames ignored the memo from Dr. Brad Bond warning him that we were in violation of SACS accreditation principles.


5. President Shelby F. Thames either ignored or failed to recognize the significance of two warning letters from SACS about the possibility of probation.


6. After the announcement of SACS probationary status in December 2004, the Thames administration lied about a “strategic” plan by stating that the faculty were engaged in its drafting.  Institutional integrity is essential in the SACS accreditation process and this lie compromised the integrity of the university.  Moreover, this lie involved the mission statement that is part of the strategic plan, thus we may be in violation of SACS principle 3.1.1, 3.4.2, and 3.4.3.


7. By locking out Institutional Research employees at the beginning of the Thames administration, USM was not able to continue to collect the appropriate data in a timely fashion to ensure the maintenance of our accreditation status.


8. By firing all of the deans at the initial restructuring of the university, the Thames administration effectively destroyed a large part of the institutional memory necessary to keep USM on track for accreditation.  Almost all upper administrators were new to their jobs and had no mentoring.  This is in violation of SACS principle 3.2.6, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8.


9. Plans were made to remodel the library at the Gulf Park campus which entailed removal of almost all collection and study space.  These plans were done in order to accommodate a non-existent executive MBA, which probably would have been implemented had the library been remodeled.  This move most likely would have impacted curriculum and curriculum development and faculty should have had a chance to address this before the engineering firm drew up the plans for remodeling the library.  This could have not only affected the accreditation of the library, but also may have had implications for SACS.


10. The Department of Customer Service was authorized by the administration to override class caps on enrollments.  Instructors were not contacted in advance.  In some cases, enrollments are capped because of discipline-specific accreditation, and in some cases enrollments are capped because of available equipment (i.e., computers, microscopes, etc).


11. Throughout the Thames administration, there has been little or no attempt to provide relief to the library budget.  The library staff and faculty have been valiant in their creative attempts to keep the library as up-to-date as possible, we are falling behind.  The state of our library, and the lack of support from the administration, threatens SACS accreditation. 


12. Since the initial restructuring of USM by the Thames administration, the Nursing program has struggled for resources, and has been beset with faculty and nursing administration turnover.  Subsequently, the nursing program’s accreditation is severely threatened.  Last year, USM nursing graduates had the lowest pass rate for NCLEX, falling below 75%.  Many believe that this will occur again and mean additional threats to nursing accreditation.  The program has recently voted to change their grading scale from a 10 point scale to a 7 point scale, in an effort to quickly turn around the NCLEX pass rate for USM graduates.  While this might be a stop-gap measure, ultimately what the nursing program needs is adequate resources and faculty stability.  Until things change in the Thames administration, there seems little hope for that.


13. The enrollment scandal of 2003, reporting false enrollment for USM to the IHL board has also negatively affected institutional credibility.  The entire process of SACS accreditation rests on the concept of integrity, and our integrity was compromised.


14. The announcement that the meeting of local business and professional leaders was arranged or facilitated by Lisa Mader in order to convince the right people to keep Shelby Thames as the president of USM also threatens SACS accreditation.  SACS principle 3.2.4 states:  “The governing board is free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external bodies, and protects the institution from such influence.”


15. The letter from Jay Grimes to Harold Doty not only threatened the business accreditation, but also SACS accreditation, as acknowledged by IHL Interim Commissioner Crofts.

Respectfully Submitted

AAUP-USM

A Resolution

AAUP-USM

Passed by unanimous vote March 10, 2005 in a regular meeting of the chapter.

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration has consistently failed to engage faculty and other University constituencies in meaningful dialogue before promulgating far-reaching decisions affecting the entire University community; and

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration has continued its pattern of disrespectful and, on occasion, contemptuous treatment of faculty; and

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration has failed to develop a coherent strategic plan or to articulate rational goals appropriate for the only comprehensive multi-campus university in south Mississippi; and

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration has failed to engage faculty and other University constituencies in systematic planning processes to determine the priorities of the University; and

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration has brought embarrassment to the University by allowing the institution to slip to a Tier 4 ranking in the annual ranking of colleges and universities by U.S. News and World Report; and

WHEREAS, the Thames Administration ignored repeated warnings from SACS resulting in probationary status; and

WHEREAS, the USM Faculty Senate on February 2, 2005, by a vote of 39 to 2, asserted that a second term for President Thames was “not in the best interests of USM or higher education in Mississippi” and requested that the IHL Board “begin as soon as possible” a national search for his successor; and

WHEREAS, such distinguished journalists from the Jackson Clarion-Ledger as columnist Eric Stringfellow (Feb. 17) and Executive Editor Ronnie Agnew (Feb. 20) have criticized the Thames Administration for its failures; and

WHEREAS, a survey conducted by the USM Chapter of AAUP in February, 2005 revealed that 91% of the 211 faculty respondents reported that they were either “very dissatisfied (76.3%) or “dissatisfied” (14.7%) with shared governance at USM—precisely the same degree of dissatisfaction registered in a Fall 2003 survey:

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the USM Chapter of AAUP does hereby affirm its lack of confidence in the USM administration and does respectfully but urgently request the Board of Institutions of Higher Learning to move expeditiously to commence the search for a new president to take office at the expiration of President Thames’s present term.