Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> SACS OUTCOME?
Post Info TOPIC: SACS OUTCOME?
Cossack

Date:
SACS OUTCOME?
Permalink Closed

As a respite from dueling with trolls, I would like to get other poster’s forecasts on the outcome of the upcoming SASC accreditation. In addition to the forecasts, it also would be helpful to provide reasons to support those forecasts.

I have made no secret of my views that SACS will put us on probation after the real visit. There are several reasons that lead me to hold this view, which I will relate, in no particular order.

1. It would be almost impossible to make up for all of the lost time when SFT misjudged the importance of SACS and dismantled the mechanisms to achieve accreditation. As those who have been involved in previous SACS accreditation know. The process calls for a large collection of people from all disciplines working to satisfy SACS for their particular areas. Under SFT, the process slowed and virtually halted until the infamous letter arrived. In SFT fashion, the process was resurrected as a top down exercise with make believe input from departments and colleges. If USM is accredited, it sends a message to other universities that you do not need to get started early on the process, you can wait and sprint to the end in a year or so.

2. SFT cannot have made any friends with the SACS hierarchy when he bullied them into a meeting and told them that HE would fix it. I suspect that this one meeting told SACS more than SFT wanted them to know, namely, he did not have clue about how to deal with accreditation. Since he will be President during the SACS visit, I do not see any reason for SACS to cut USM any slack.

3. SACS accreditation is not just about the university; it also is about the Board that controls the university. Auburn’s probation was partly the result of problems with their Board. I suspect that SACS has not been impressed with the IHL Board in its handling of USM.

4. The myth of “Too Big To Fail” is often raised as a reason that SACS will back off and let USM off the hook. When one studies situations where TBTF is supposedly in play such as banks or universities, it almost always is the case that the institution survives but the people in charge get their hands handed to them. This includes boards of directors, presidents, etc.

5. SFT is invincible, lucky, tenacious or dangerous. Some posters have insinuated that somehow SFT will win out because of “choose your term”. The results of other SACS struggles, the most recent being Auburn, indicate that SACS trumps local and state politics.

I look forward to hearing counter arguments from others. Note that I refer to counter arguments. Personal attacks, name calling, and explanation as to why USM faculty are the dregs of the earth, are expected. However, you get no credit for those answers since almost all faculty have had their quota of sophomoric attempts to pass off personal insults as thought.


__________________
stinky cheese man

Date:
Permalink Closed

how long do you think we'll be placed on probation?

__________________
Reporter

Date:
Permalink Closed


Cossack wrote:




... I have made no secret of my views that SACS will put us on probation after the real visit.  ...


Cossack, what do you mean by "...the real visit.”?  ?


My guess is that USM has gathered (made up?) enough data to satisfy SACS concerning "assessment of distant learning" and will be removed from probation.


However, the next review that will include the administration and governance should be very interesting.  The many errors of SFT will be included in that review.


 



__________________
LeftASAP

Date:
Permalink Closed

stinky cheese man wrote:

how long do you think we'll be placed on probation?
Do you mean for the next SACS review are the last one which got us on probation?  I think USM will get off of this probation and then in a year or so be back on probation for the 2006 review.

__________________
stinky cheese man

Date:
Permalink Closed

the "real" visit (and i'm not sure how people are defining the term; it suggests there are "not so real" visits--all SACS visits are important and have important consequences) comes up in the fall. by SACS policies we can only be extended on probation one more year. if we're not off probation by 2006, December, it's over. it doesn't matter what the reason is (distance learning, outcomes assessment, governance), December 2006 is it.

__________________
Ew, gross.

Date:
Permalink Closed

Cossack wrote:

" ... the institution survives but the people in charge get their hands handed to them. "
Day-um! That's downright medieval!

__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

I was less than careful with terminology. By a real visit, I was referring to the scheduled visit in the Fall that would have occurred regardless of the recent probation for lack of timely reporting. Stinky Cheese Man laid the time line out clearly in his post. While the two issues, the non-reporting probation and the scheduled visit this Fall, are separate, I do not believe that the temporary probation will be separate in the minds of the SACS evaluation team. As I have stated before, the credibility of SACS is involved in the outcome at USM. Whatever the decision by SACS, it will send a message to other universities. I think SACS will hang tough and put USM on probation again and make some strong recommendations to the IHL Board with a roadmap for improvement.

__________________
Cossack's Travel Agent

Date:
Permalink Closed

I specifically designed an itinerary that would keep Cossack far away from Internet access so that he could get some well deserved R&R. Apparently, the Internet is spreading faster than I thought. That being the case, it is important that we all help keep his spirits up and encourage him to go outside and spend time walking his dog and getting fresh air. Things will get better, just be patient.

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

FWIW, I think Cossack's forecast should be taken VERY seriously.  I hope there is no chance that the bone-headed IHL, faced with USM on extended (or new) probation, will decide to keep Shelby in place until the problem is fixed.  Surely they realize by now that Shelby IS the problem?


 



__________________
Advocate's Devil

Date:
Permalink Closed

Assume for a moment that the appropriate SACS activities will not be completed on time. As stinky cheese man points out, SACS cannot put USM on probation indefinitely under their own rules. So, what is the best course of action for SACS?

If SACS punishes USM for Shelby's misdeeds by adding probation and then possible removal of accreditation (with the knowledge that he is a lame duck), then SACS could be viewed as vindictive, as the institution would bear the burden of his misdeeds. Students would be punished long after Thames has been removed. It would appear too much like blackmail if SACS said "We won't remove your accreditation if you get another president." More on this later.

If SACS continues probation for another year only, then USM has an opportunity to clear up SACS problems. IF USM clears things up in that additional year, it would have spent an intensive two years processing SACS matters. This would allow USM to regain good status and allow SACS a viable "out." I believe this is the most likely option.

If SACS reinstates USM's accreditation this fall, SACS will indeed appear to be a joke. While I personally believe that SACS is not the 800 lb. gorilla that Cossack and others believe it is, I think SACS will want to keep up appearances, and this option is the least likely of the three I have mentioned.

As to removal of Thames and/or taking down the IHL, I think that is something SACS doesn't want to get involved in. SACS doesn't want to get the reputation for inciting coups. Were SACS to actually take this step, you could foresee situations in which presidents are shanghaied by lower-level administrators or faculty through a refusal to do SACS work. Rightly or wrongly, this is not a scenario SACS wants to be a part of.

Also, I believe everyone may be overlooking the obvious "out" that the IHL has: "We've given Thames another year to fix this SACS mess and then he's out." The IHL is effectively committed to finding another president by the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Does anyone here honestly think that USM can find a competent president who will take the job before then?

Again, this is all under the assumption that the SACS "house" will not be in order in time. I do not understand this fascination with how long it takes to get a job done. Cossack calls up the image of a long-distance runner versus a sprinter. If the objective is to cover a mile in distance, what difference does it make if you walk, jog, run, or sprint? If the SACS paperwork is complete, then it shouldn't matter how long it took, and I don't think SACS will fixate on this point. Again, what incentive is this giving USM (in general) to even work at SACS? USM works to get off probation and gets accreditation removed? That sends a signal that it's not the end product that matters, but the method used to get the end result is all that counts, and that's another bad signal to send. Attention universities: if you're out of compliance and are trying to get it together after the fact, then just give up.

My guess is that SACS will not bring down Thames in reality or in theory. I look for two more full years before he goes back to his lab. I know there are optimists out there, but I have seen no evidence that anything is capable of getting him out before August 2007. The Glamser & Stringer thing couldn't do it, the no confidence votes couldn't do it, the SACS probation couldn't do it, the Coast campus fiascos couldn't do it, the Grimes CoB memo couldn't do it, etc. I think it's time to face the fact that we've gotten as much love from the IHL as we're going to get. Thames is out in two, but any sooner and I truly believe that would be his decision.

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

AD,

SACS has brought Thames down already. Without the probation, the IHL Board could very well have decided on 4 More Years and President for Life. Even after SACS probation, assembling an anti-Thames majority on the Board proved amazingly difficult.

But Thames could be exiting before May 2007 (not August) if he does more boneheaded things that bring bad publicity upon the IHL Board. Especially if they involve another form of accreditation.

If the stories about ongoing attempts to get rid of Harold Doty and Willie Pierce are correct, Thames is hard at work being boneheaded as we speak.

Robert Campbell



__________________
Advocate's Devil

Date:
Permalink Closed

Robert Campbell,

I have heard that the CoB was badly behind in its SACS work. If true, do you not think Thames will spin the Doty firing as "helping remove SACS roadblocks"? Not sure about Pierce, though.

__________________
Questionnaire

Date:
Permalink Closed

Could that be why so many administrators in the CoB are "stepping down"? Perhaps they aren't all voluntary. Maybe they're jeopardizing Doty's job through their SACS slacking.

__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

Advocate's Devil

What is the difference between a sprint and a run if you get to the end point in either case? To SACS, there is a difference. It is an example of form over substance. SACS is interested in process and how the faculty, administrators, and the governing board work together when SACS is not looking over their shoulder. Compare two workers, or two students. One performs tasks in a timely manner and is dependable. The other waits until the last minute and rushes to finish the task. When the example is a student, the one who prepares ahead and does timely work will out perform the last minute procrastinator. If you are running a business, which is what many want at USM, which employee would you hire at the same wage. The low risk employee who always has it down right ahead of time, or the high-risk last minute finisher? Think carefully, this is not a trick question. Same pay, one employee is dependable and certain while the other is not as dependable. You may want to email SFT or KenBot to make sure you get it right.


__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed


Advocate's Devil wrote:
Robert Campbell,

I have heard that the CoB was badly behind in its SACS work. If true, do you not think Thames will spin the Doty firing as "helping remove SACS roadblocks"? Not sure about Pierce, though.


AD,

One rumor says that Thames intends to can Pierce and spin his firing the exact same way (well, maybe citing NCATE instead of SACS).

Robert

PS. Since Thames in fact has been the biggest single roadblock to accreditation, he'd have to be a complete fool to fire a dean and cite SACS or NCATE as an excuse. Unfortunately...




__________________
Piercing the Pieces

Date:
Permalink Closed

If anyone recalls, the main reason USM sidestepped having the actual visit as planned (over a year - year and a half ago) was that SFT etc. appealed to the NCATE preliminary team that so many admin. were "new" and had had no time to truly prepare for the visit. Martray's firing actually helped Thames to bide for more time with NCATE. Pierce, being the new dean, and the fact that many of the key NCATE faculty leaders had left for various reasons was the excuse given to the preliminary team - thus the extended time. But mark my words - NCATE knows, and they are arriving ready to see progress. Again, if Thames succeeds in getting rid of Pierce prior to the visit, he's going to use the same excuse again. If he keeps Pierce and probation begins, Pierce will either have to step down or lose his job altogether.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed


Advocate's Devil wrote:
Assume for a moment that the appropriate SACS activities will not be completed on time. As stinky cheese man points out, SACS cannot put USM on probation indefinitely under their own rules. So, what is the best course of action for SACS?


I don't know the actual status of the documentation that Dr. Exline has compiled. I do know that Dr. Sullivan probably was quite specific about forms -- the dreaded five-column institutional effectiveness form ("show use of results!") and the standard SACS faculty credential forms. If USM has the forms looking pretty, things might be lifted in December. Seriously.

I know that a lot of my friends at USM have been working very, very hard on this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if the probation is lifted in December.

On the other hand, I gotta have a little sympathy for the devil's opinion here:

If SACS continues probation for another year only, then USM has an opportunity to clear up SACS problems. IF USM clears things up in that additional year, it would have spent an intensive two years processing SACS matters. This would allow USM to regain good status and allow SACS a viable "out." I believe this is the most likely option.

If SACS reinstates USM's accreditation this fall, SACS will indeed appear to be a joke. While I personally believe that SACS is not the 800 lb. gorilla that Cossack and others believe it is, I think SACS will want to keep up appearances, and this option is the least likely of the three I have mentioned.


First, believe me, SACS isn't worried about appearing to be a joke. Anybody who has a small bit of experience with regional accreditation -- which only 6 months ago seems to have meant "virtually nobody in the USM administration" -- will tell you that SACS doesn't really care what you or I think.

However, it is quite possible that USM will present its pretty forms & reports, the C&R Committee will look at it & say, "Fine. Now you have a year to prove that you're really doing this stuff." In that case, a second year of probation (to be lifted in December 2006) would be in order.

I guess the upshot is that nobody really knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the C&R Committee

My guess is that SACS will not bring down Thames in reality or in theory. I look for two more full years before he goes back to his lab. I know there are optimists out there, but I have seen no evidence that anything is capable of getting him out before August 2007. The Glamser & Stringer thing couldn't do it, the no confidence votes couldn't do it, the SACS probation couldn't do it, the Coast campus fiascos couldn't do it, the Grimes CoB memo couldn't do it, etc. I think it's time to face the fact that we've gotten as much love from the IHL as we're going to get. Thames is out in two, but any sooner and I truly believe that would be his decision.


I think you're right, AD. Nothing, however, precludes SFT doing something else utterly bone-headed stupid & like the C&R Committee, we really don't know what may be zinging around inside the IHL members' heads (except that in 3 or 4 cases whatever it is zings around unimpeded by gray or white matter). But as you indicate, some pretty bone-headed stuff hasn't resulted in his demise yet.



__________________
stinky cheese man

Date:
Permalink Closed

i know lots of folks are working hard. we might get off probation in December, but I think it'll be one more year. SACS may want to be sure that the message has gotten through that they are to be taken seriously, and that planning, assessment, and the like are processes that we're going to have to do continuously. remember, i'm one of those people who see our failure as not taking it seriously for 10 years and 3 administrations. plus, in 12/2006 we'll be in the midst of a presidential search and being on probation until then keeps the heat on the IHL to make ST honor his commitment to resign as president.

__________________
Advocate's Devil

Date:
Permalink Closed

Cossack wrote:

Advocate's Devil What is the difference between a sprint and a run if you get to the end point in either case? To SACS, there is a difference. It is an example of form over substance. SACS is interested in process and how the faculty, administrators, and the governing board work together when SACS is not looking over their shoulder. Compare two workers, or two students. One performs tasks in a timely manner and is dependable. The other waits until the last minute and rushes to finish the task. When the example is a student, the one who prepares ahead and does timely work will out perform the last minute procrastinator. If you are running a business, which is what many want at USM, which employee would you hire at the same wage. The low risk employee who always has it down right ahead of time, or the high-risk last minute finisher? Think carefully, this is not a trick question. Same pay, one employee is dependable and certain while the other is not as dependable. You may want to email SFT or KenBot to make sure you get it right.

 


You know, Cossack, I didn't attack you.  I didn't besmirch you or any USM faculty.  I simply presented another opinion, which happened to differ from yours.  I also clearly presented several alternatives, not one of which concluded with "...and Shelby Thames will be seen for the great president that he is" because I don't believe that is true. 


I didn't attack you, yet you snidely tell me to "email SFT or KenBot to make sure you get it right."  I have never been a fan of Thames or Malone.  Your statements are putting words in my mouth and are painting an untrue picture of me.


As for the sprinter versus the jogger, I can see that you are referencing "The Tortoise and the Hare," but I maintain that if the SACS documents are in order when SACS hits campus, then SACS will look like a "bully" if it pulls accreditation or tries to force a regime change at USM.  Regime change is coming, though not as fast as we'd like. 



__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

This is a fascinating thread; thanks to all who've contributed.  I do agree with Robert that if it were not the SACS debacle last fall, Shelby would probably have been renewed for another four years.  Thus, SACS has already had a positive impact on USM.  Apparently even the IHL is beginning to understand that you do not mess with major accrediting bodies.

__________________
tiny tim

Date:
Permalink Closed

God bless you each and every one.

__________________
online, hook and sinker

Date:
Permalink Closed

As someone who has taught online courses for a number of years, it doesn't matter how much paper we put in front of SACS that says we're doing a good job. The bottom line is that NO ONE evaluates online courses; its left to the instructor to self-police. If its a crappy course, no one knows but the instructor and the students. Just ask them.....


__________________
Advocate's Devil

Date:
Permalink Closed


Robert Campbell wrote:



AD,

One rumor says that Thames intends to can Pierce and spin his firing the exact same way (well, maybe citing NCATE instead of SACS).

Robert

PS. Since Thames in fact has been the biggest single roadblock to accreditation, he'd have to be a complete fool to fire a dean and cite SACS or NCATE as an excuse. Unfortunately...





Robert,

You're correct, of course. SFT cannot seem to go a month without doing something stupid that would get any normal human being fired. I think it's likely that Doty and Pierce will have to walk a two-year tightrope just to make sure they don't get fired, which might be more difficult than it sounds. If what you say is true, the Pierce will probably have a showdown before Doty will. A thought occurs to me: What if (and this is purely hypothetical) both Doty and Pierce have enough dirt on SFT, Grimes, Dana, et. al., that the discipline-level accrediting bodies (NCATE and AACSB) could cite their actions (or inactions) as cause to revoke discipline-level accreditation. Wouldn't it behoove Pierce and Doty to call in the cavalry? That might be the embarassment needed to push SFT out.

__________________
In the Know

Date:
Permalink Closed

We will be removed from probation after Dec SACs board meeting.  The only two weak spots with reaffirmation are related to duties that should have been pursued by Graduate Council and Academic Council...especially program reviews (or the lack thereof).  With those exceptions, most people are working very hard for favorable results for the sake of the Univ and its students and their efforts will be rewarded.


 



__________________
Bob

Date:
Permalink Closed

In the Know wrote:

We will be removed from probation after Dec SACs board meeting.  The only two weak spots with reaffirmation are related to duties that should have been pursued by Graduate Council and Academic Council...especially program reviews (or the lack thereof).  With those exceptions, most people are working very hard for favorable results for the sake of the Univ and its students and their efforts will be rewarded.  
Am I to understand that you are placing blame on Graduate Council and Academic Council?

__________________
SACS member

Date:
Permalink Closed

It isn't about blame.  But, they will be cited for some things or "lack of" things.



__________________
Bob

Date:
Permalink Closed

SACS member wrote:

It isn't about blame.  But, they will be cited for some things or "lack of" things.
Am I to understand that the "lack of" things is because of the Graduate Council and the Academic Council rather than because of the administration?

__________________
Pin the tale

Date:
Permalink Closed

SACS member wrote:

It isn't about blame.  But, they will be cited for some things or "lack of" things.

By whom?


 



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

In the Know wrote:

We will be removed from probation after Dec SACs board meeting.  The only two weak spots with reaffirmation are related to duties that should have been pursued by Graduate Council and Academic Council...especially program reviews (or the lack thereof).  With those exceptions, most people are working very hard for favorable results for the sake of the Univ and its students and their efforts will be rewarded.  

Accreditation problems at USM are never the fault of any administrator...


RC



__________________
LVN

Date:
Permalink Closed

A review of the membership of both AC and GC would be instructive. What was that question about "retribution"?

__________________
1 2 3  >  Last»  | Page of 3  sorted by
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> SACS OUTCOME?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard