VX700

If I just wanted people to agree with me, I would not use this Board as a medium. There are more opinions expressed on this Board than there are posters since some posters post under more than one name. My purpose in starting this thread was to find out what posters were thinking about in regards to SACS accreditation, and why. The response has been a large amount of what posters are thinking and much less why. What I gather from your response is that many SACS activities going on internally at USM that faculty do not know about. If that is so, it is the direct opposite of what SACS and other accreditation bodies seek. Faculty involvement is a key issue so it would not be an effective approach if the preponderance of the SACS activity was unknown to the faculty and staff. Accreditation bodies have increased the focus on the process used to achieve results as well as outcomes. Many faculty have cohorts at universities recently accredited or are now going through the final stages. All of those I have talked to were surprised that my college and department were not engaged in SACS activity 3 to 4 years before the visit. They have described to me the activities in which they engaged 2-3 years before the visit. They described what USM is trying to do now less than a year before the visit. My question has been, and continues to be, given the defects in the accreditation process at USM, how will USM fare? In addition, I have asked others to give me reasons that SACS would allow USM to get through accreditation given the situation. I gather from your post that you also are not sure what will happen.

I find it interesting that your interpretation of my post is SACS will bring SFT down. I agree with you, it has already happened. A more important question is why the IHL Board continues to support a “lame duck coach to bring us to victory”? One theory is the “Anti USM Conspiracy” of the Ole Miss and State dominated Board; a theory that is looking more and more like reality precisely because of the lack of logical explanations for the IHL Board’s behavior.

You state that, “Unfortunately for you, no one on this board has even 75% of the facts with respect to USM's SACS situation. There's all sorts of stuff out there that no one outside the Dome knows. That means that nobody knows exactly what will happen with SACS.” Your statement suggests that SFT and his staff know what is going on but faculty do not. I do not think that a SACS consultant would say that this is a winning strategy. Indeed, you have described the problem facing USM in its accreditation battle.