The Looming SACS Mess --Part 2

The SACS guidelines stipulate that the chief executive officer is responsible for ensuring integrity throughout the process and accuracy; providing adequate personnel and financial resources; reviewing progress reports and providing feedback; updating the board of trustees on matters pertaining to the review regularly; and assuring that the college/university is in compliance with the Principles of Accreditation set forth by the SACS’ standards, policies, and procedures. From our view, interim president Castell Bryant’s role as the temporary chief executive officer is a liability at this point because of her inability to properly manage the finances of the university; her disregard for shared governance and frequent breaches of contracts with faculty and staff. In a written letter sent to Castell Bryant on June 8, 2006 from Dr. Gerald Lord, Vice President for Commission on Colleges (see above), summarieses some of the findings of the SACS visiting committee which visited FAMU in December. (Yes we have the complete report, but its too lengthy to post online here). A copy of this report should be released by FAMU (attorney generals opinion 75-79) with the following statement “The findings of this visiting committee represent a preliminary assessment of the institution at this time; final action on the report rests with the Commissions on Colleges.” If Castell decides to release only part of the report, then the following statement must be present: “A copy of the entire report can be obtained from FAMU.”

The COVER-UP: 3.7.1

3.7.1 – The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline in accordance with the guidelines listed below. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty.

____Compliance

__X_Non-Compliance

____Did Not Review

SACS Comment:
The University did not provide documentation that all faculty in the programs reviewed had acceptable qualifications to teach within the discipline. At least three faculty members teaching in the Electronic Engineering Technology and Construction Engineering Technology programs did not have documentation of the advanced degree requirements. One had documentation of a degree conferred by an on-line institution that is not regionally accredited. The Committee did not find official transcripts for several faculty in the Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and the Health Administration programs. Additionally, unofficial copies of transcripts were found for faculty in other programs reviewed. The Committee has concerns about the level of scholarly productivity of the graduate faculty in the School of Nursing and graduate programs in the School of Allied Health Sciences. The University needs to support graduate faculty scholarship, particularly in these two areas.

SACS Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the institution provide documentation that all faculty members in the programs reviewed have acceptable qualifications, including documentation of the highest degree earned. The Committee further recommends that for faculty who earned the highest degree from a non-regionally accredited institution the institution provide further documentation of competencies to teach within the discipline.

(click on letters above to make BIGGER)