As a twenty-eight year faculty member, I have has been through three SACS accreditation visits and worked closely with Maureen McClintock and Bobbie Buczyna—our SACS leaders--as part of three SACS Leadership Teams.  They resigned—after Dr. Atkins was fired.  McClintock and Buczyna have led the College through the last two full SACS accreditations, and there is no one at the College at present who has those skills. 

The academic world is complex, certainly; however, the accreditation language can be almost incomprehensible to those not familiar with the process.  Thus, I want to comment on Dr. Walker’s statement that these SACS findings are “easily fixable” and are “mixed up policies and procedures.”  These statement are, yet again, another attempt to evade the seriousness of the situation at Edison State College and dodge his responsibility for these findings.   First of all, these findings are not “equal.”  Very few institutions have EVER received an “Integrity” violation; also, “Core requirements” are serious violations of the basic academic needs that strike to the “Core” of the College.

Dr.Walker did not convey the truth when he stated the following:

-The College has received “no new findings” since the Focus Report earlier this year;  FACT:  1, 2, and 3 are new.

-He could “guide” the College through the process to “fix” these findings; FACT:  he has stated repeatedly that he does not “oversee operations.”   In my experience with him over the last 20 years, he has never actively overseen College operations—as he has admitted to the BOT. 

-The College has the employees necessary to fix these findings.  FACT:  We have NO administrators who have ever been through a full College-level SACS accreditation process, except Dr. Pendleton—the administrator who lied to the BOT about the course substitutions at the April, 2011 meeting.

Dr. Walker’s pattern of not telling the truth about the SACS findings is further evidence of the 1.1 Integrity Violation.  When the SACS on-site team arrived, they interviewed Bobbie Buczyna, Maureen McClintock, Bob Beeson, Steve Atkins, and Bill Roshon (all employees who have been fired by Dr. Walker or resigned because of the firings); their testimony was part of creating the SACS findings—a fact that speaks for itself.

 

If the BOT members would like further comment on the severity of 1.1 Integrity Violation, please contact Dr. Belle Whelan—the president of SACS.  I emailed her this morning and will relay her response to the BOT.

As one of the few employees who has been closely involved in several SACS accreditations (I wrote 3.5.1 and 3.7.2), I’d like to comment on these recommendations, and I have proof to support each comment, should you ask to see documentation.

ONSITE VISIT RECOMMENDATIONS

1.     Principle 1.1 – Integrity – The Committee recommends that the institution provides evidence that they have safeguards in place to ensure the integrity of its academic programs and all operations.

FACT:  This finding is the most serious violation that an educational institution can have from SACS.  It is stating that the College has NO INTEGRITY in its academic BUT ALSO its “operations.”  It strikes to the core of the College, and it points to the District President’s behavior regarding the entire management of the College.  This violation is very rare and generally fixed ONLY by the removal of the President.

 

Here is the Principles of Accreditation Definition of 1.1: The Commission on Colleges expects integrity to govern the operation of

institutions and for institutions to make reasonable and responsible decisions

consistent with the spirit of integrity in all matters. Therefore, evidence of withholding information, providing inaccurate information to the public,

failing to provide timely and accurate information to the Commission, or failing to conduct a candid self-assessment of compliance with the Principles

of Accreditation and to submit this assessment to the Commission, and other similar practices will be seen as the lack of a full commitment to integrity.

The Commission’s policy statement “Integrity and Accuracy in Institutional Representation” gives examples of the application of the principle of integrity in accreditation activities. The policy is not all-encompassing nor does it address all possible situations. (See Commission policy “Integrity and

Accuracy in Institutional Representation.”) Failure of an institution to adhere to the integrity principle may result in a loss of accreditation or candidacy.

 

1.1       The institution operates with integrity in all matters

 

2.     Core Requirement 2.7.2 – Program Content – The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that all degree programs embody a coherent course of study as appropriate to the designated field.

FACT:  During the last five years, as Assessment Chair, I’ve seen new educational programs just “appear” with curriculum proposals and “placecard” courses (they hadn’t been developed) and no faculty.  Students enrolled in the programs, but the courses often were not developed (such as the BSN and Human Services A.S.).  There was enormous pressure to add these programs without the necessary resources, faculty, or curriculum.  We thought these programs were being added because the College was struggling financially and we had to run them on “a shoestring.”  However, after the top-level administrative salaries were published in the News-Press in March, 2011,  faculty realized College financial resources were being shifted into Dr. Walker’s $800,000 salary, other top administrative salaries, and pet projects.  It was a stunning moment of realization that we had been lied to for over five years about the College’s financial solvency.  A typical example of the lax program development process is the program that Dr. Pendleton kept pushing:  Vet. Tech.  We actually hired a man in St. Pete to write the curriculum for $10,000; he copied syllabi from another college, we had no resources or help to develop the program—and we just closed down the process in late spring, 2011.

 

3.     Core Requirement 2.8 – Faculty – The Committee recommends that the College ensure that the number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs.

FACT:  The Faculty Senate and Faculty Union have asked Dr. Walker repeatedly for more full-time faculty.  We are paying him $800,000 a year, which could be used to hire around 16 new faculty.  We have a handful of faculty chairs, each of whom coordinate massive numbers of adjuncts on three campuses; it is impossible to ensure academic quality with this large number of adjuncts.  As the Assessment Chair, I coordinate all of the academic assessments with a revolving door of adjuncts who have to be educated on our Institutional Portfolio every semester.  It is impossible to have quality control when the workforce keeps shifting essentially every four months.

 

4.     Comprehensive Standard 3.2.7 – Organizational Structure – The Committee recommends that the institution clearly define and publish an organizational structure that delineates responsibility for the administration of policies.

FACT:  Our organizational chart has changed at least a dozen times this year alone; it is incomprehensible.  Every time Dr. Walker fires someone, another person shifts around and takes on duties not in his or her original job description.  Again, it is impossible to have quality control or any type of organizational cohesiveness in this type of situation.  More disturbingly, the firings have been those administrators who have pursued the truth behind the course substitutions and baccalaureate admissions requirements.

 

5.     Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8 – Qualified Administrative and Academic Officers – The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that they have qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience, competence and capacity to lead the institution.

FACT:  The few administrators who are left at the College are not adequately credentialed for their jobs.  We have many “interim” people in positions that they do not merit in either degrees or experience (as shown in their CVs that went to SACS).  Let me give an example, and this is in no way a criticism of the administrator.  Dr. Erin Harrel worked at the College as an adjunct in education.  She was hired in 2007 as a full-time faculty member (I was on the search—it was a one week hire—because the education program had no full-time faculty).  She was made a “Chair” in 2008 and, then, hired as an Associate Dean in 2009 (this was again a local search).  Dr. Browder then “appointed” Dr. Harrel as the Dean of Education in Fall, 2010—there was no “national search” as Dr. Walker’s email stated when he made her the Interim VPAA.  Dr. Harrel, while competent, is in no way qualified to be a VPAA; however, she was moved around at Dr. Walker’s whim with a $40,000 salary increase.

 

6.     Comprehensive Standard 3.2.13 – Institution-Related Foundations – The Committee recommends that the institution provide evidence that a contractual or formal agreement with its Foundation that accurately describes the relationship between the institution and the Foundation, and (2) describes the liability associated with that relationship.

FACT:  The Financing Corporation began about five years ago with $10,000 moved into a fund (not sure where it came from); it now has almost ten million dollars in that “foundation.”  This money is tapped at will by Dr. Walker (through Gina Doeble), as evidenced by the “salary cut” that Dr. Walker took and then reimbursed himself from the Financing Corporation for part of it.  I have the 990 forms from the Financing Corporation and am quite curious where the money came from; apparently, “donations” were sent to a P.O. box, per the description of the Financing Corporation webpage.

 

I would recommend that the BOT freeze all funds being moved from any of the foundations or contingency funds—with a full fiscal audit.  The fact that Dr. Walker could write a check for over $300,000 to Dr. Noreen Thomas last November (2010) as a “buy-out” with only his secretary notarizing it, indicates to me that he can tap large sums of money at the College through Ms. Doeble—with little or no accountability. (This contract was published by the News-Press.)

 

7.     Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 – Quality Enhancement Plan – The Committee recommends that the institution narrows the focus of the QEP.

FACT: Faculty have stated repeatedly that the QEP needs a narrower focus.

 

8.     Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 – Quality Enhancement Plan – The Committee recommends that the institution develop an assessment plan for their QEP.

FACT:  As the Assessment Chair, I have asked repeatedly for the assessment plan and have received nothing.

 

9.     Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1 – Institutional Effectiveness: Educational Programs – The Committee recommends that the institution identify its expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in educational programs to include student learning outcomes.

FACT:  For the last five years, the members of the Student Assessment Committee have begged for the resources to do assessment (this fact is documented on our Student Assessment Website in the posted minutes).  Kevin Coughlin, Crystal Revak, and I handle ALL assessments on all four campuses with no other resources; we created an Assessment Director position that we tried to fill in February, 2011; and Dr. Walker and Dr. Pendleton canceled the position.  At a meeting today on November 15, 2011 (yesterday), Pam Fairfax and Dr. Harrel admitted that we need the position.

 

10.  Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.2 – Institutional Effectiveness: Administrative Support – The Committee recommends that the institution identify its expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results of the administrative support services.

FACT:  Dr. Walker has never seen the importance of assessment.  In the last two SACS accreditations, the College has been given a finding on Institutional Effectiveness, but nothing was done to add the necessary resources.  This point can be verified by Maureen McClintock.

 

11.  Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.5 – Institutional Effectiveness: Community Public Service – The Committee recommends that the institution identify its expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of results for the community public service within the educational mission as appropriate.

FACT:  No one has overseen this issue--ever.

 

12.  Comprehensive Standard 3.4.3 – Admissions Policies – The Committee recommends that the institution provide evidence that their baccalaureate admissions policies are clear and enforced in a consistent manner.

FACT:  There is a report from Jason Dudley—a statistics researcher at the College--that shows a violation of state statutes for baccalaureate admissions; it has been suppressed by Dr. Harrel.  I have asked for it repeatedly, but it has not been provided to the Student Assessment Committee;  I’m requesting it today as a Public Records Document.  This finding is based on facts that the SACS on-site team reviewed, so the report must’ve shown a violation of baccalaureate admissions policies.

 

13.  Comprehensive Standard 3.4.5 – Academic Policies – The Committee recommends that the institution publishes, implements, and consistently enforces policies related to course substitutions that adhere to the principles of good educational practice.

FACT:  The course substitutions have taken place, the faculty asked Dr. Walker about it publically in the April, 2011 meeting, and he said they were “insignificant.”  Dr. Pendleton said the same thing to the BOT in the April, 2011meeting, as the BOT members will remember.  The subsequent investigation initiated by Dr. Atkins revealed that the substitutions were serious and widespread as revealed by the AACRAO report.  Dr. Walker tried to cover up the substitutions but, then subsequently, blamed Dean Roshon and Associate Dean Foy; they resigned.  Dr. Walker then tried to fire Dr. Beeson for not firing Associate Dean Foy (though Mark Lupe told the Senate Subcommittee five days before the Beeson termination that the College had “no evidence” -- only a suspicion that Foy had committed any wrongful acts).  Then, Dr. Walker proposed Lupe become a VP with a $60,000 raise (taken off the BOT agenda for November 4, 2011, when it was revised).

 

14.  Comprehensive Standard 3.5.3 – Undergraduate Program Requirements – The Committee recommends that the institution provides evidence that the requirements for undergraduate programs are consistently enforced.

FACT:  This finding speaks to the lack of integrity in the administrative oversight; the constant pressure to add new programs without the resources makes it difficult to shore up the programs that already exist. (see 2.7.2)

 

 

As you can see, these findings are complex, intricate issues that have been longstanding at Edison State College.  We have been under intolerable pressure to constantly develop new programs with no resources, while Dr. Walker kept increasing his own excessive salary.  These programs, as SACS stated, received findings in several areas.  Again, many of these issues have been brought to Dr. Walker’s attention, but he has chosen to ignore them or cover up the problems.

 

As such a veteran employee who is passionate about my teaching, it is heartbreaking to have my students ask me in class, “Is my degree going to be worth anything?”  I hear this rhetoric “that it’s about the students” from top administrators (who are not or have never been in the classroom) but, from my perspective as a person with the students every day, the administration is clueless as to how the students feel.  The BOT heard from the students at the public comment sections of the BOT meetings; they are upset.

 

It is impossible to correct these SACS issues by June, 2012; but, even more importantly, we cannot even begin to work on these findings while the person who allowed (indeed, encouraged) them to happen with full knowledge, remains at the College.  The atmosphere and morale on campus reflects anxiety and uncertainty, and cannot improve while Dr. Walker remains; he is the source of the 1.1 Integrity Finding and has mismanaged the College to the point, I fear for our accreditation next June. 

 

o   A true leader does not evade the truth.

o   A true leader does not use a College’s resources for his financial gain.

o   A true leader knows when he has lost the confidence and loyalty of his     faculty.

o   A true leader steps down immediately when it is time to go for the good of the College.

 

If we have a change of leadership at the very top and can start the New Year fresh—with transitional help from SACS--the College can at least begin to rebuild and address these SACS findings.