University Accreditation

Date: Mar 30, 2004

University Accreditation

Date: Mar 30, 2004

They are up for SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, I think) accreditation soon...2005, maybe? I think that Brad Bond is now in charge of this. I also think that there's a link to the SACS website on the USM home page at the bottom. Will post it if I find it.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"When will USM next be up for acceditation?"

From the March 2003 Staff Council meeting notes:

Dr. Maureen Ryan, Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness, presented a plan for USM’s 2005-06 SACS accreditation, including proposed budget, committee structure, and timeline. We are slightly behind in our time frame and must begin immediately to form committees, etc. Dr. Ryan stated that there are major changes in purpose and requirements for re-affirmation beginning in 2003: old SACS system (Criteria for Accreditation) verses new system (Principles of Accreditation).

I have no idea what has happened now that Maureen isn't in charge anymore.

Here's another weird thing I noticed...there are no meetings announced nor minutes posted of ANY staff council meeting past summer 2003. Did Shelby disband them, too? Any staff members from USM here who can speak to this?

Date: Mar 30, 2004

USM Symp:

None of this will affect our accreditation with SACs. Brad Bond has already confirmed that.

SACS has no interest in these types of issues.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Helper
"USM Symp: None of this will affect our accreditation with SACs. Brad Bond has already confirmed that. SACS has no interest in these types of issues."

Are you sure? Have you been following the situations at other regional universities which have been threatened with loss of accreditation and have become very worried as a result -- worried enough to replace a president, in fact?

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Helper
"USM Symp: None of this will affect our accreditation with SACs. Brad Bond has already confirmed that. SACS has no interest in these types of issues."

What about the issues regarding Ken Malone as dept. chair with no degree in that field? See our thread on the Malone/Hollandsworth connection. I think that there will plenty of problems with accreditation when time comes to closely examine what's happened.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Helper
"USM Symp: None of this will affect our accreditation with SACs. Brad Bond has already confirmed that. SACS has no interest in these types of issues."

With whom did Brad Bond confirm this? I am really curious to know if indeed you have spoken to Bond or if you are looking to disrupt the board again.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

My thoughts exactly Fire Shelby (in regard to Helper's post). I do not know much about the accreditation process, but I am sure it can not look good to have so many faculty openings.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

Auburn University was placed on probation by SACS. One of the reasons was micromanagement by a Thames like trustee member, Bobby Lowder.

The Auburn Faculty Senate was instrumental in bringing this issue to the attention of SACS

The link below is from a Montgomery TV station website. Additional links are available from the page.

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=1557500&nav=0RdEJd7U

Date: Mar 31, 2004

From Dr. Know in the thread speculating a dean's firing:

Sadly, it appears that it will be Doty from the College of Business and Economic Development. On one hand, it would be shocking for Malone to be Dean (even interim) for the very reason truth4usm mentions...accreditation. But on the other hand, it's an accreditation problem that has Doty in trouble with the Dvorak/Hudson/Malone economic development machine. ED's online PhD program doesn't meet AACSB accreditation standards..it isn't even close. The faculty members in ED, which include Dvorak, Hudson and Malone (see http://www.usm.edu/ec odev/pages/faculty.htm) would rather lose AACSB accreditation for the college than lose the online PhD program or move it from the college of business. It's supposedly very financially lucrative (and at today's USM, Inc., it's ALL about $$$). But Doty isn't playing ball. Like everyone else in the college (outside of ED), he views AACSB accreditation as very desirable...a symbol of quality and academic standards that the college has been able to achieve for years. However, Hudson and Malone see AACSB as a burden...an inhibitor to their vision. That online PhD is Hudson's baby, you know; he created it. He isn't going to let a "little" thing like AACSB accreditation hurt his baby.

So, if you think about it, it may not be that crazy for Malone to be the new Dean. The powers that be don't seem to care about AACSB accreditation in the first place, so what's to stop them from installing an untenured polymer guy as Dean of the College of Business and Economic Development (sans AACSB accreditation)?

Best I can tell, Doty's ONLY chance for survival (and continued AACSB accreditation for the college) is if he can convince Hudson to move that online PhD in economic development out of the college. But no one sees that happening.

The speculation that Malone would be qualified as Dean of a College of Business or College of Business and Economic Development is too ludicrous for discussion. Other posters have already noted that he has no business degrees and no faculty or academic administrative experience.

The issue on this thread, however, is university accreditation and Dr. Know discusses it pretty well above. Losing AACSB accreditation for the Business School, or forfeiting it, in favor of the economic development department would be devastating for the faculty and students in that college. Think recruiting and retention are problems now?

There's nothing "world class" about an unaccredited College of Business!

Date: Mar 31, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: glum alum
"Auburn University was placed on probation by SACS. One of the reasons was micromanagement by a Thames like trustee member, Bobby Lowder. The Auburn Faculty Senate was instrumental in bringing this issue to the attention of SACS The link below is from a Montgomery TV station website. Additional links are available from the page. http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=1557500&nav=0RdEJd7U "

Has anyone sent a copy of this article to our Board?

Date: Mar 31, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Helper
"SACS has no interest in these types of issues."

Having participated in 3 SACS self studies and directed one, I can tell you that this statement is incorrect.

Pulling out my worn copy of the "old" SACS _Criteria_ (recently replaced by a less prescriptive set of "Principles" but still used as the basic guideline for interpreting the new rules), I found the following:

"An institution must adopt and distribut to all faculty members a statement of the principles of academic freedom as established by the governing board, ensuring freedom in teaching, research & publication ... All policies regarding employment, as established by the governing board, must be published and distributed to the faculty. If the institution uses faculty ranks and tenure, the policies and procedures for promotion, for awarding tenure, for providing adequate notice on non-renewal of a probationary appointment, and for termination of appointments, including those for cause, must be clearly set forth in the faculty handbook or other official publication. Termination and non-renewal procedures must contain adequate safeguards for protection of academic freedom.

(Emphasis added by Invictus)

Now, the new SACS "Principles" are less detailed, but there has been no departure in intent from those in the old _Criteria_ (above).

SACS has been very emphatic over the years that the governing board (i.e., IHL) and not the administration (including "risk managers) is responsible for setting policy. There may very well be some "governance issues" here... I don't have the time or energy to go through the entire manual, but there are probably a dozen other sections that would apply to the current situation.

Date: Mar 31, 2004

quote: Originally posted by: Invictus
"SACS has been very emphatic over the years that the governing board (i.e., IHL) and not the administration (including "risk managers) is responsible for setting policy. There may very well be some "governance issues" here... I don't have the time or energy to go through the entire manual, but there are probably a dozen other sections that would apply to the current situation."

Thanks for confirming my inituition that SACS might indeed be very interested in what is happening at USM. I can guarantee you that the involvement of SACS would put the real fear of God into the administration and the state politicians. They will enjoy campaigning against the ACLU (much as I admire that organization), but when the fear of loss of accreditation is raised, they will be much more nervous. Parents and students who previously took no interest in this matter will be concerned at the possibility of losing federal funding, scholarships, grants, etc. These, unfortunately, are real possibilities raised by the recent behavior of the USM administration. As someone recently mentioned, the president of Auburn was recently forced to step down by the governor of Alabama precisely because of fear of loss of accreditation. The number one priority of the new president there is to make sure that accreditation is not lost. This is viewed as a major concern by everyone. I suspect that even your governor would sit up and take notice if USM seems at risk (as it probably is) of having its accreditation questioned.

Date: Mar 31, 2004

Just located my copy of the "new" SACS Principles of Accreditation, which is thankfully a lot shorter than the old Criteria. Unfortunately, it isn't as detailed as the Criteria.

Here's some more food for thought...

Section III. Comprehensive Standards

Programs

Faculty

24. The institution ensures adequate procedures for the safeguard and protection of academic freedom

25. The institution publishes policies on the responsibility and authority of faculty in academic and governance issues.

Earlier in the document, the Principles make it clear that the board and not the administration is responsible for setting policy. If what I've read on this board is true regarding the Thames administration's disregard for faculty input on academic and governance issues (for example, the faculty handbook issue), then Comprehensive Standard 25 would be a problem for USM.

Of course, it's one thing to publish policy & another thing altogether to enforce said policy...

Date: Mar 31, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Of course, it's one thing to publish policy & another thing altogether to enforce said policy... "

Thanks, Invictus, for doing this kind of checking. If the situation in Alabama is any indication, SACS has a pretty good record of really enforcing its rules and of not backing down, even in the face of threatened lawsuits. In fact, the suit brought against SACS in Alabama backfired on the trustees bringing the suit; their action only stiffened the determination of SACS to be taken seriously. In the end, the suit was abandoned, and the trustees are at least making a good show of trying to comply with SACS. I am not deeply familiar with the accrediting process, but it SOUNDS as if the Thames administration has already committed numerous violations -- or at least has given of serious appearance of having done so.