The Looming SACS Mess --Part I

Lately, there has been much discussion about a process that FAMU has been in engaged in and successfully completed for over 50 years---accreditation by the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges. Under the leadership of Dr. Walter Mercer, at least three times, FAMU has successfully steered its way through the accreditation process. What is most confusing about the current process is, “why did the interim president dismiss Dr. Mercer”, without any provocation or with very little respect? Even if she desired new leadership, was the rude and dismissive way she handled this necessary? This is another example of her not relying upon institutional knowledge and experience as a bridge to get the job done
"effectively, efficiently and effortlessly." The interim nor her provost has any experience, whatsoever, in getting a comprehensive university through the reaffirmation process. Although, they may have experience as community college administrators, FAMU’s process will cover all degree granting programs: associate of arts, bachelors, master’s, J.D., Ed.D and Ph.D. Secondly, she abruptly removed Dr. Friday-Stroud without warning in public forum as SACS Liaison and replaced her with (best girlfriend) Vivian "just got tenure" Hobbs.

The problem is the latest “Big Cover-Up” of the lie they told to SACS/BOT (see page 4) about the faculty-peer review process. Did it or did it not take place as they reported? Well here is an excerpt from one of our posters:

@@ As it was fully disclosed at the June 29th BOT meeting, Janie Greenleaf sidelined her own faculty committee, including her co-chair, as she unilaterally decided not to involve them in the evaluation of faculty credentials. Instead she hired two faculty members (Demetral Worthen and JoAnn Houston [both deltas]) or other staff on a paid basis to evaluate some 900 FAMU faculty credentials strictly based on faculty transcripts and assignments of responsibility. The process used by Greenleaf’s office was totally flawed as it completely ignored the SACS procedural guidelines and criteria with respect to the evaluation of faculty qualifications. At any rate, this was the FIRST TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS that the provost claimed to have applied.

@@ The deans were supposed, actually required, to consult with the concerned department heads and contact their impacted faculty members regarding their SACS status, but it did not happen in every case as there were many faculty members across the campus who were not even notified at all of Greenleaf’s decision regarding their SACS status. As a result, it is entirely possible that there are many faculty members on the list who still are not clear about their SACS status or what fate awaits them. Regardless the deans sent their respective responses to the provost. This was the SECOND TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS.

@@ Just a few days before the June 29th BOT meeting, this committee was resurrected by Hobbs and Greenleaf and was asked to review those faculty members who were placed on the above-mentioned 2nd list (the disputed group). This was the THIRD TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS highlighted by the provost. To repeat, only the disputed group of faculty was reviewed by this committee, not the rest. Therefore, the fact is that there was no THIRD TIER review for those faculty members who were justifiably or unjustifiably categorized as NOT QUALIFIED by both parties involved in the first two tiers. So to talk about a three-tiered process is somewhat misleading, for it did not cover everybody. Now if the university wants to do the right thing then the provost, Debra Austin should correct this mistake. Austin reported as trying to correct this lie and has said as much recently in the Tallahassee Democrat “FAMU, for instance, is about to redo a previously attempted peer review of all faculty members' credentials,” said Austin. The Accreditation Liaison [Vivian Hobbs] (appendix B; pg. 43) role is doubly important because they are responsible for the accuracy of all information submitted to SACS, as well as, Castell Bryant's role to insure objectivity and integrity of the university is upheld. SACS assumes that all participants in the process will conduct their responsibilities with integrity, objectivity, and fairness.