SACS Delay? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 16, 2005

SACS Delay?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Any idea what this is really about?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Does this article suggest that the IHL and USM have different ideas about the institutional mission?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Well, now the IHL board finally realizes that they do not run the universities after all. SACS says the Strategic plan must include input from all (Shared Governance). They had developed their university mission in secret with no input. Remember the goal of 20,000 students etc? ( In the quote below, document = strategic plan)

..."The document (USM's New Strategic Plan) deviates somewhat from the mission statement developed and adopted by the College Board in 2004, Pepper said.

"The board worked for a couple of years developing a mission statement for regional schools," he said. "There are some differences in the areas of emphasis in this."

Pepper said the document (USM's New Strategic Plan) takes out references to serving south Mississippi and specific programs of study that are mentioned in the board's mission statement.

The document (USM's New Strategic Plan) is a collaboration between the administration, faculty and staff, which have not often seen eye-to-eye on recent issues."

So now readers it appears the faculty were correct. The IHL and SFT are not the bosses, at least as far as SACS is concerned. The strategic plan must have input from faculty and the IHL's mission statement must change to match the plan and not vice versa.

I can't believe the IHL staff didn't inform Klum et. al that they were out of bounds.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

"Well, now the IHL board finally realizes that they do not run the universities after all.....SACS says the Strategic plan must include input from all (Shared Governance).....They had developed their university mission in secret with no input.....So now readers it appears the faculty were correct.....The IHL and SFT are not the bosses, at least as far as SACS is concerned.....The strategic plan must have input from faculty and the IHL's mission statement must change to match the plan and not vice versa....."

Very astute, Left ASAP. So now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

I'd like to correct a couple of things in Reuban's otherwise good article.

I am interim director of theatre, not chair of theatre and dance.

And I also indicated strongly that while an improvement on the administrative generated in secret version of the mission statement, that this process was far inferior to the one in 1998 when goals and objectives were first generated at the department level, then went up to the joint committee level and administrative level or review and refinement and then bounced back down to departmental level for review and reaction before being finalized. I indicated that many at the university were unfamiliar with the new plan because it had not gone through that process, although the committee formed to put it together had doneyeoman work and had also tried very hard to get as broad a reaction as possible.

Just to clarify the record.

Thanks to all.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Robert Campbell should have fun with this one. The IHL Board is now going to be the cause of USM's SACS probation problems. Seems like we now have the finger pointing at the very source of all of the problems.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I'd like to correct a couple of things in Reuban's otherwise good article. I am interim director of theatre, not chair of theatre and dance. And I also indicated strongly that while an improvement on the administrative generated in secret version of the mission statement, that this process was far inferior to the one in 1998 when goals and objectives were first generated at the department level, then went up to the joint committee level and administrative level or review and refinement and then bounced back down to departmental level for review and reaction before being finalized. I indicated that many at the university were unfamiliar with the new plan because it had not gone through that process, although the committee formed to put it together had doneyeoman work and had also tried very hard to get as broad a reaction as possible. Just to clarify the record. Thanks to all.

Stephen,

Does the news reported today represent a potentially serious problem or just a small blip that should not be a cause for serious alarm? It's hard to tell from the article.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

The draft Strategic Plan referred to in the article can be viewed at this link:

http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/misc/StrategicPlan_June05.doc

Date: Jun 16, 2005

I was optimistic that SACS reaccreditation would be accomplished this year. I don't think its going to happen now. From the SACS perspective, if the institution can't effectively formulate a strategic plan, how can it succeed in the more complex activity of educating students? This left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing way of operating is just another example of Thames's administrative incompetence.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Does the IHL's mission statement reflecting USM as a "regional" institution further the "conspiracy theory" to put USM "in its place?"

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Identity Crisis wrote:

Does the IHL's mission statement reflecting USM as a "regional" institution further the "conspiracy theory" to put USM "in its place?"

No longer a "theory" in my opinion. Perhaps IHL will have to disclose its strategic vision now.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

time to bail wrote:

I was optimistic that SACS reaccreditation would be accomplished this year. I don't think its going to happen now. From the SACS perspective, if the institution can't effectively formulate a strategic plan, how can it succeed in the more complex activity of educating students? This left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing way of operating is just another example of Thames's administrative incompetence.

Make that wurl' class administrative incompetence.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

WTF? wrote:

Identity Crisis wrote:
Does the IHL's mission statement reflecting USM as a "regional" institution further the "conspiracy theory" to put USM "in its place?"
No longer a "theory" in my opinion. Perhaps IHL will have to disclose its strategic vision now.

I have been using "WTF?" as a moniker for quite some time now. When I chose it, I scanned countless old threads to make sure I wasn't co-opting someone else's name. Please choose another. Thanks.

WTF?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

I cannot see why members of this message board are pinning this on Thames. It is clear from the article that the problem lies with the IHL's mission statement and not with SFT's mission statement. Therefore, any administrative blunders with respect to this situation lie with the IHL. You can't pin everything on Shelby.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

I think the IHL Board and Shelby Thames are equally deserving of blame. The Board was responsible for micromanaging USM's mission statement. Thames is resonsible for not recognizing the conflict between the draft strategic plan and the mission statement previously imposed by the Board.

Thames could have sounded out the Board's staff about these issues a while back--obviously, he didn't. Does he ever bother to do things like that?

The conflict is further proof that if Thames is the tool of a conspiracy to contain USM and keep it inferior to UM and MSU, he is a completely unwitting tool.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 16, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Does the news reported today represent a potentially serious problem or just a small blip that should not be a cause for serious alarm? It's hard to tell from the article.

USM Sympathizer,

I view the most serious problem to be that which is reflected in the quote by Phil Pepper who refers to "regional schools." It puts USM in with Delta State and MUW and fits Invictus' conspiracy theory. This seems to be a 180-degree turnabout from the way USM was previously viewed as a major comprehensive university. I wonder if they are trying to downgrade us from comprehensive to regional status. It sure sounds to me like we've been put in that category.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Serving the greater tri-county area wrote:

USM Sympathizer wrote:
Does the news reported today represent a potentially serious problem or just a small blip that should not be a cause for serious alarm? It's hard to tell from the article.

USM Sympathizer,
I view the most serious problem to be that which is reflected in the quote by Phil Pepper who refers to "regional schools." It puts USM in with Delta State and MUW and fits Invictus' conspiracy theory. This seems to be a 180-degree turnabout from the way USM was previously viewed as a major comprehensive university. I wonder if they are trying to downgrade us from comprehensive to regional status. It sure sounds to me like we've been put in that category.

USM has never been a "major comprehensive university" in anyone's eyes outside of Hattiesburg. USM has had pockets of greatness, which is admirable and which should be encouraged. However, Mississippi cannot support three major institutions, and State and Ole Miss are in a much better position to maintain their spot in the greater order of things. Delusions of grandeur are running amuck on this board today.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

I think the IHL Board and Shelby Thames are equally deserving of blame. The Board was responsible for micromanaging USM's mission statement. Thames is resonsible for not recognizing the conflict between the draft strategic plan and the mission statement previously imposed by the Board. Thames could have sounded out the Board's staff about these issues a while back--obviously, he didn't. Does he ever bother to do things like that? The conflict is further proof that if Thames is the tool of a conspiracy to contain USM and keep it inferior to UM and MSU, he is a completely unwitting tool. Robert Campbell

I remember hearing Thames say during the presidential "search" that USM "cannot be all things to all people." That was the "uh-oh" moment for me. Others might remember this as well. He said this during the open forum that was held in the polymer science auditorium.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

I think the IHL Board and Shelby Thames are equally deserving of blame. The Board was responsible for micromanaging USM's mission statement. Thames is resonsible for not recognizing the conflict between the draft strategic plan and the mission statement previously imposed by the Board. Thames could have sounded out the Board's staff about these issues a while back--obviously, he didn't. Does he ever bother to do things like that? The conflict is further proof that if Thames is the tool of a conspiracy to contain USM and keep it inferior to UM and MSU, he is a completely unwitting tool. Robert Campbell

Robert, It's obvious that Crofts understands how strategic plans and mission statements are supposed to arise and how all should have input. Surely the Board staff where aware of SACS. Before Crofts came on board, where do you think the breakdown occurred? Why did the board draft a mission without using the in place strategic plan (Fleming)? Didn't anyone ask the staff?

I'm assuming the new strategic plan was motivated by the upcoming SACS review and SFT thought the board's mission statement, with the famous goals (20,000 students, etc.), was a strategic plan.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Reporter,

Hmm... the chronology is important here.

When was the current Board mission statement for USM adopted?

If it was adopted after SFT became president, doesn't it reflect his input? Would SFT have wanted the Board to pay any attention to a strategic plan draw up on under Horace Fleming?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 16, 2005

.... drawn up under Horace Fleming...

RC

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Reporter, Hmm... the chronology is important here. When was the current Board mission statement for USM adopted? If it was adopted after SFT became president, doesn't it reflect his input? Would SFT have wanted the Board to pay any attention to a strategic plan draw up on under Horace Fleming? Robert Campbell

Robert, SFT laid out his goals and mission statement very early. From the minutes of the Sepetember 13, 2002 F.S. meeting at http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/minutes/2002-09-13.html I found:

"Mission Statement: IHL Board instructed institutions to rethink mission statements. We altered ours some, got Cabinet and Dr. Cabana involved, and submitted a new mission statement, which was approved at the August IHL retreat. In the past those issues were controversial; people have thought that some institutions wanted to take programs from others. This is not that environment. The intention is to make sure that mission statements are appropriate for the day and for ten years ahead. The statement is available at: www.usm.edu/usmweb/mission.html."...

and further we have...

"Goals: We need to improve our faculty and staff salaries. This will be hard to do. We will try to change the attitude of the legislature.

We will try to get to the $100M level in research funding. This frees up money in the general budget. Dr. Dvorak and I have had intense discussions on how to get to $100M.

We need to improve our physical infrastructure.

We need to grow to 20K students. We're stretched already, but you're either moving ahead or falling behind. Let's grow our population, and demand what we need to teach those students. When our population is going up the legislature has to pay attention. We need to grow this university.

We need to increase our average ACT score, because that's a perception of quality. We need to be seen as the first rate institution that we are.

We must achieve the $100M capital campaign goal (now at $78M)."

It appears obvious that SFT composed it with very little input.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

VX700 wrote:

USM has never been a "major comprehensive university" in anyone's eyes outside of Hattiesburg. USM has had pockets of greatness, which is admirable and which should be encouraged. . . . Delusions of grandeur are running amuck on this board today.

Pockets of GREATNESS???? Yes, delusions of grandeur are running amuck on this board today. And some places on campus, every day.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Mr. Wizard wrote:

Pockets of GREATNESS???? Yes, delusions of grandeur are running amuck on this board today. And some places on campus, every day.

I'm not sure how to read the tone of your comment. I will just say that, prior to Shelby, USM really did have a superb English department that was recognized nationally for strengths in any number of areas (I can think of four in particular).

Date: Jun 16, 2005

the IHL site reports that the board approved USM's strategic plan today (Thursday).

Date: Jun 16, 2005

From Faculty Senate Listserv:

The strategic plan and mission statement was adopted by the Board today.

Approval of the mission and vision statements wasn’t without discussion. The IHL Staff didn’t like the short vision statement and was concerned that we had deviated from the format previously used for mission statements. Specifically, they wanted program areas to be listed and the geographic emphasis to center on South MS. The initial vote from the committee was in support of tabling review of the mission statement. However, we “conferenced” at the end of the day and I emphasized that (1) we need this for other SACS documents, (2) faculty and staff had a lot of opportunities for input, and (3) we had researched statements from a lot of other universities. Furthermore, I pointed out that NOT LISTING specific programs was one of the most important changes requested by faculty and staff.

Dr. Crofts complimented us on our work and said we were leading the pack in terms of “trends” in mission and vision crafting. Several board members commented positively, too. He expects other universities to being to change their mission statements as well.

Today, the Board approved it unanimously. Again, thanks to UPC members for your hard work!

By the way, comments about the Environmental Assessment are still trickling in from Faculty Senate. Soon, that section will be added to the plan and it will become an official document!

Joan

Joan L. Exline, PhD, FACHE

Associate Professor, Health Policy & Administration

Assistant to the President for Accreditation,

Planning, and Articulation

The University of Southern Mississippi

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Apparently the IHL Board isn't that bent on regional status for USM--or on blocking a strategic plan because it had significant faculty involvement.

Of course the Board may still have plans for USM that it sees no need to incorporate in a mission statement.

In any event, this is one issue that won't stand in the way of SACS accreditation.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Any time we can designate something as One Less Thing to Worry About Today, we should be grateful. I am also grateful to Dr. Exline for using quotation marks around the bastard verb "conferenced" --- ick.