The CL is alsor reporting this morning on the new arrangement where U presidents will be report to a stronger Commissioner of Higher Ed instead of directly to the Board. Was Cossack's prediction correct? Is this the first sign that SACS is affecting the way MS Higher Ed is run?
It was pointed out to me that several of the board members traveled to other states to study their governance situations, and found others (Georgia may have been one -- this has been discussed here previously) who have systems like the one they are proposing. I have no doubt the SACS situation was a factor, in that they were caught off guard by the probation and are no doubt determined not to let themselves be surprised like that again. But also, from a purely organizational standpoint, the change makes sense. Their stated purpose is to function as more of a policy-making body and let the Commissioner and his or her staff be the administrators. Thus you go from having 12 people supervising 8 people to having one person trained in the profession do the supervising. It actually sounds more "business-like" -- it was interesting that Ross immediately tried to raise objections, but Newton reminded him that it was a draft and much more discussion and refinement was to come.
quote: Originally posted by: LVN "It was pointed out to me that several of the board members traveled to other states to study their governance situations, and found others (Georgia may have been one -- this has been discussed here previously) who have systems like the one they are proposing. I have no doubt the SACS situation was a factor, in that they were caught off guard by the probation and are no doubt determined not to let themselves be surprised like that again. But also, from a purely organizational standpoint, the change makes sense. Their stated purpose is to function as more of a policy-making body and let the Commissioner and his or her staff be the administrators. Thus you go from having 12 people supervising 8 people to having one person trained in the profession do the supervising. It actually sounds more "business-like" -- it was interesting that Ross immediately tried to raise objections, but Newton reminded him that it was a draft and much more discussion and refinement was to come."
Be still my heart! Is this the good news we've been waiting for??? You mean, no one likened SFT to Jackie Robinson?? Abraham Lincoln?? Mother Teresa??
It seems the tide may be finally turning towards running these businesses like universities!
Their proposal reminds me of a corporate set up in which you have a board of directors and a CEO. The CEO is responsible for day to day operations and supervision, while the board sets policy. Someone commented to me yesterday that when Thames lost his temper and wanted to fire S & G, if he had needed the approval of a Commissioner first, instead of going to his friends on the board, it might have been a very different outcome.
I would think that this newly proposed IHL organization should give the cigar-smoking Hattiesburg big shots less power in inappropriately interfering with the internal affairs of the university.
There is a good possibility that the IHL now realizes that the SACS mess, as it concerns USM, is likely to get worse before it gets better, and that these steps by the IHL are part of an effort to head SACS "off at the pass." In other words, when SACS gets to Hattiesburg in the fall and REALLY starts to investigate what has been going on at USM, largely because of the way the IHL has allowed it to go on, the IHL can then claim, "well, those are old problems; they are no longer possible thanks to our new system." The IHL itself could really have gotten slammed by SACS if changes had not been made, and the IHL may have felt that it was wise to make the changes sooner rather than later.
At Auburn, only a few members of the board were violating sound governing practices. At USM it has been Shelby, Shelby's minions, certain members of the local bidness community, and the IHL (under Klumb) itself who have been committing gross violations. The potential for a mess that would dwarf anything that happened at Auburn was (and still is) clearly in the offing. At Auburn the president who was dismissed did (basically) only one Stupid Thing; he was actually a pretty good president in other respects. Shelby, on the other hand, has a list of Stupid Things that runs as far as the eye can see. If the IHL can't foresee that Shelby is a source of potential major further embarrassment down the line, they must be nearly blind. Yesterday's developments suggest that some of them (at least) realize what the future may hold from SACS.
quote: Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer "There is a good possibility that the IHL now realizes that the SACS mess, as it concerns USM, is likely to get worse before it gets better, and that these steps by the IHL are part of an effort to head SACS "off at the pass." In other words, when SACS gets to Hattiesburg in the fall and REALLY starts to investigate what has been going on at USM, largely because of the way the IHL has allowed it to go on, the IHL can then claim, "well, those are old problems; they are no longer possible thanks to our new system." The IHL itself could really have gotten slammed by SACS if changes had not been made, and the IHL may have felt that it was wise to make the changes sooner rather than later. At Auburn, only a few members of the board were violating sound governing practices. At USM it has been Shelby, Shelby's minions, certain members of the local bidness community, and the IHL (under Klumb) itself who have been committing gross violations. The potential for a mess that would dwarf anything that happened at Auburn was (and still is) clearly in the offing. At Auburn the president who was dismissed did (basically) only one Stupid Thing; he was actually a pretty good president in other respects. Shelby, on the other hand, has a list of Stupid Things that runs as far as the eye can see. If the IHL can't foresee that Shelby is a source of potential major further embarrassment down the line, they must be nearly blind. Yesterday's developments suggest that some of them (at least) realize what the future may hold from SACS. "
Thank you, USM Symphathizer, for that astute assessment. All of my fingers are crossed! Slowly, but surely, the tide is turning....
quote: Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer "Truth, You type pretty well for someone who has all of her fingers crossed! I can't even hit the right keys when all of my fingers are free! "
I do not believe that Cossack's prediction was correct. I think SACS is a paper tiger. This move by the board is simply another way to put some space between the board and Shelby. They will not remove him, but they are tired of dealing with problems. Crofts just became their "customer service" line to troubleshoot and Thames-related problems.
SACS reputation is based on their overall performance, not just on one school. Furthermore, as long as USM is on probation, SACS is serving two masters: itself and Shelby. SACS doesn't want to become the agency that brings down college presidents; that would escalate the existing level of angst that universities have for accrediting bodies.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue "I do not believe that Cossack's prediction was correct. I think SACS is a paper tiger. This move by the board is simply another way to put some space between the board and Shelby. They will not remove him, but they are tired of dealing with problems. Crofts just became their "customer service" line to troubleshoot and Thames-related problems. SACS reputation is based on their overall performance, not just on one school. Furthermore, as long as USM is on probation, SACS is serving two masters: itself and Shelby. SACS doesn't want to become the agency that brings down college presidents; that would escalate the existing level of angst that universities have for accrediting bodies."
SACS was pretty darned resolute in dealing with Auburn -- even when (in fact, especially when) Auburn took SACS to court. SACS prevailed completely. Lesson learned at Auburn: don't mess with SACS.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue "I do not believe that Cossack's prediction was correct. I think SACS is a paper tiger. This move by the board is simply another way to put some space between the board and Shelby. They will not remove him, but they are tired of dealing with problems. Crofts just became their "customer service" line to troubleshoot and Thames-related problems. SACS reputation is based on their overall performance, not just on one school. Furthermore, as long as USM is on probation, SACS is serving two masters: itself and Shelby. SACS doesn't want to become the agency that brings down college presidents; that would escalate the existing level of angst that universities have for accrediting bodies."
Big Blue,
How many "customer service" people overrule university presidents, in public, telling them to retract written orders to deans--or else? And the reason for that retraction was: concerns about accreditation.
SACS doesn't have to tell universities to get rid of presidents (I rather doubt that SACS ever says a president has to go, in so many words). But going on probation often leads to presidents being deposed, as the SACS people are well aware.
If university administrators aren't a little bit afraid of accrediting bodies, will they be so likely to comply with the requirements (which, even when they're being handled efficiently and on time, do take a lot of work)?
As for whether SACS could issue sanctions against an entire state system, people who know SACS history will have to evaluate the likelihood. As badly as the IHL has performed, it's not like the situation in 1930 when Governor Bilbo fired over 100 professors and administrators and replaced them with his buddies. But I think it has occurred to the Board that SACS could end up holding it responsible for the Southern Mess.
Those who liken USM's situation to Auburn's do not know what they are talking about. Auburn's situation went beyond a president who doesn't follow faculty wishes. Auburn had a rougue trustee who was pulling the puppet president's strings, the puppet athletic director's strings, etc. USM's situation is nowhere near the scope of Auburn's.
From SACS' perspective, Thames is not doing everything correctly, but it may seem to SACS that faculty are inept, given its lack of ability to make a cogent argument that can win the IHL and the public over.
Auburn was the example. USM will be business as usual.
By the way, Mr. Campbell, I really like the fact that you can speak authoritatively on either the Auburn situation or the USM situation, given that you live in neither place and work at neither university.
You may know a thing or two about how things work at other places, but if you think an outside body will lord over a Mississippi institution, you are sadly mistaken.
governing boards are not accredited by SACS, institutions are. SACS can say, however, that a board is part of the problem. the situation at Auburn and at USM with respect to their boards are not parallel. Auburn's board only dealt with Auburn, much like a private university's board. it is not a system-wide board like the IHL is.
also, to respond to USM sympathizer's comment--generally, you don't mess with SACS. in the case of Auburn, however, SACS got beat to a degree in court. ultimately both SACS and Auburn mutually agreed to drop their lawsuits and work toward a resolution of the issues at Auburn.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue "By the way, Mr. Campbell, I really like the fact that you can speak authoritatively on either the Auburn situation or the USM situation, given that you live in neither place and work at neither university. You may know a thing or two about how things work at other places, but if you think an outside body will lord over a Mississippi institution, you are sadly mistaken. "
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue " Those who liken USM's situation to Auburn's do not know what they are talking about. Auburn's situation went beyond a president who doesn't follow faculty wishes. Auburn had a rougue trustee who was pulling the puppet president's strings, the puppet athletic director's strings, etc. USM's situation is nowhere near the scope of Auburn's. From SACS' perspective, Thames is not doing everything correctly, but it may seem to SACS that faculty are inept, given its lack of ability to make a cogent argument that can win the IHL and the public over. Auburn was the example. USM will be business as usual. "
Actually, I think USM's situation is worse than Auburn's. As I said earlier, at Auburn, ONE trustee (basically) was the problem; otherwise the university was functioning reasonably well. There was certainly no widespread national embarrassment about Auburn as there was/is about USM. Auburn had not become a by-word of gross administrative corruption throughout the nation, as is true of USM. There were not repeated votes of no-confidence in the president (as at USM). There were not ham-handed public statements by a trustee (as at USM, with the incomparable Roy Klumb). There were not egregious violations of privacy and academic freedom (as at USM). The administrators had Auburn had shown, in general, respect for sound academic practices in hiring and firing, as has not been true at USM. Auburn was, in general, not a cesspool of nepotism, as is true at USM. The situation at Auburn had not generated public statements of concern from hundreds of academics around the world, as has happened at USM. The Auburn trustee in question (who, by the way, still has ENORMOUS influence at Auburn) would still be running the entire show if not for two things: (1) faculty taking their concerns DIRECTLY to SACS, and (2) the football recruiting fiasco, which embarrassed even the football fans. In the South, it usually all comes down to football in the end.
In short, Auburn had a fairly decent president (USM does not have anything close). Auburn had a trustee who, although very powerful, also had enough brains not to shoot his mouth off at every inopportune moment. USM, on the other hand, has Roy Klumb. Case closed.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue "By the way, Mr. Campbell, I really like the fact that you can speak authoritatively on either the Auburn situation or the USM situation, given that you live in neither place and work at neither university. You may know a thing or two about how things work at other places, but if you think an outside body will lord over a Mississippi institution, you are sadly mistaken. "
Big Blue,
I will happily defer to the people who have worked directly with SACS on these questions. You have been speaking authoritatively about SACS, but if you have any actual experience of dealing with SACS you haven't chosen to share that information with us.
For instance, Invictus works neither at USM nor at Auburn. Does that render him incapable of judging what SACS has done at Auburn, or at USM?
I noticed that you didn't answer any of my points--most notably, the one about Crofts overruling Thames in public.
And your final statement reads like famous last words. I believe, in fact, that it has been proved wrong a few times in the last 50 years--otherwise the Mississippi state system might well be the same one that M. M. Roberts presided over, before he started yearning to "clean house." Doesn't mean that SACS will prove it wrong again, but a little caution might be indicated.
I predicted a year ago on the old FS Board that serious changes would begin to occur at USM when SACS finally got involved. I am satisfied that for at least once in my life one of my predictions has come true. The evidence of the last few months, weeks, and days all seems to point in that direction.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue "By the way, Mr. Campbell, I really like the fact that you can speak authoritatively on either the Auburn situation or the USM situation, given that you live in neither place and work at neither university. You may know a thing or two about how things work at other places, but if you think an outside body will lord over a Mississippi institution, you are sadly mistaken. "
Big Blue, whether you like it or not USM has and will continue to be judged by those not affiliated with the school. USM was judged by the persons who participate the USNews study. It was judged by the SACS persons who slapped the school on probation. There is no reason to believe that Professor Campbell's judgment is any less valid or any more positive than the others who have found USM wanting.
quote: Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH " Big Blue=caterer=ssDude DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!"
I find it strange that a grad student who has escaped USM calls everyone who argues an opposite side a "troll." Andrea Hewitt (truth4usm/AH) has been doing this for several weeks now. For a group that claims to espouse high ideals like "freedom of speech," the posters on the AAUP board seem to have no problem "shouting down" those who do not toe the line.
If you want to have a private board, just make it so one has to register. That way, you could control access. Otherwise, just enjoy your stay in Nashville, A.H.
quote: Originally posted by: Faded rose "There is no reason to believe that Professor Campbell's judgment is any less valid or any more positive than the others who have found USM wanting."
Actually, RC's attitude toward USM is demonstrably more positive than is likely to be the case of the vast majority of outside observers. RC has demonstrated real commitment to trying to make USM a better place, whereas most outside observers, I am afraid, would simply dismiss USM altogether and say, "well, what would you expect of Mississippi? 'Higher education in Mississippi' is an oxymoron. Don't waste your breath on this issue." Instead, RC has waged a valiant struggle to help USM by telling the truth about the place. It's a shame folks like Big Blue don't seem to appreciate RC's commitment to their school and community (which is, as someone has pointed out on another thread, merely a reflection of his commitment to the academy in general).
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue " I find it strange that a grad student who has escaped USM calls everyone who argues an opposite side a "troll." Andrea Hewitt (truth4usm/AH) has been doing this for several weeks now. "
Actually, big blue (and I am now seriously beginning to suspect that you may indeed be albert or one of that ilk in disguise), you will find that we have BEGGED those who "argue an opposite side" to actually MAKE SOME ARGUMENTS. (I have recently made just such a request to ssDude, who hasn't responded, just as Albert never responded.) The only folks who get labelled as "trolls" around here are the folks, like caterer, who try to spread demonstrably false information (such as the claim that Klumb spoke at the IHL meeting when Klumb wasn't even there, or the claim that Dean Pood has been in conversation with the local police chief when Dean Pood emphatically denies that any such conversation took place).
If you really come here looking for serious discussion, we will be glad to oblige.
quote: Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer " Actually, big blue (and I am now seriously beginning to suspect that you may indeed be albert or one of that ilk in disguise), you will find that we have BEGGED those who "argue an opposite side" to actually MAKE SOME ARGUMENTS. (I have recently made just such a request to ssDude, who hasn't responded, just as Albert never responded.) The only folks who get labelled as "trolls" around here are the folks, like caterer, who try to spread demonstrably false information (such as the claim that Klumb spoke at the IHL meeting when Klumb wasn't even there, or the claim that Dean Pood has been in conversation with the local police chief when Dean Pood emphatically denies that any such conversation took place). If you really come here looking for serious discussion, we will be glad to oblige."
And a reminder I am happy to meet anyone who genuinely has something to discuss in person.
I keep making this offer in all sincerity, but no one ever seems to take me up on it.
And Stephen, as soon as I am called to Hattiesburg (love the area - need that Southern Mississippi fix every once in awhile), I will be meeting you at the J.
quote: Originally posted by: Big Blue " I find it strange that a grad student who has escaped USM calls everyone who argues an opposite side a "troll." Andrea Hewitt (truth4usm/AH) has been doing this for several weeks now. For a group that claims to espouse high ideals like "freedom of speech," the posters on the AAUP board seem to have no problem "shouting down" those who do not toe the line. If you want to have a private board, just make it so one has to register. That way, you could control access. Otherwise, just enjoy your stay in Nashville, A.H. "
She's not just a grad student, BB, she's also an alum and a former staffer who used to work in the Honors College, Sponsored Research office and also wrote grants for Polymer Science at USM. She has a breadth of knowledge about the situation at USM, and we're lucky to have her still fighting the good fight for us from Music City.
From the tone of your post, you remind me of a former board troll, Online Prof. Could it be that you are one and the same? Surely not! Ken Malone, is that you? Lost your lynching rope, perhaps?