Dear Members of the Board,

I am writing to implore you to seek detailed and experienced counsel to interpret the SACS findings before your November 29th Board meeting. In his interviews with the press, Dr. Walker has downplayed the significance of these findings and assured the public that we could correct each and every violation by our June deadline. I do not believe this is an accurate statement and I am troubled by the fact that Dr. Harrell’s “guest opinion” in the paper did little to clarify the meaning of these recommendations. I understand the need to reassure the public that Edison is still a reliable institution of Higher Education but I believe that lying about the severity of our problems when there is no doubt that we will be sanctioned, will backfire and further damage our reputation. We do not get to do another focused report. The findings we were given will stand and all that the SACS Commission will determine in June is what type of sanction we will receive, a warning or probation, and how long our period of monitoring reports will endure. The only way to remove a finding is to make an appeal to the Commission and Dr. Walker already stated that he would not appeal their findings. Although we will not lose accreditation yet, we will also NOT be reaffirmed. Considering the number of serious recommendations, we will most likely be closely monitored for two years.
Edison received two recommendations concerning our core requirements. The twelve core requirements established by SACS represent the most fundamental standards the College must meet to be reaffirmed. If you fail in any ONE core requirement the institution is in jeopardy of losing accreditation and we received two. The two core requirement findings refer to standards 2.7 and 2.8. Standard 2.7 refers to Program Content and relates, essentially, to the course substitution scandal. You should ask Dean Myers if she believes that we can correct this finding by June because my educated guess is that she will tell you that we cannot. This finding will not disappear until all of the students who were given bogus course substitutions have gone through the pipeline and completed the correct curriculum. Standard 2.8 refers to our need to conduct proper national searches for full-time faculty. Again, it seems unlikely that we have the manpower to set up enough search committees and properly conduct them between now and June so this standard is unlikely to be corrected either.
In addition to our Core Requirement findings, we received eleven recommendations concerning Comprehensive Standards. The Comprehensive Standards are refinements to each of the Core Requirements and to receive eleven violations shows how close we were to receiving even more violations of Core Requirements.
Finally, we received what is known in SACS parlance as the “kiss of death”; the 1.1 Integrity Violation. It is impossible to clear up an integrity violation by fixing any of the problems identified in the Comprehensive Standard and Core Requirement recommendations. An integrity violation suggests that there is pervasive and pernicious corruption throughout the institution that originates in the office of the President. This is a VERY RARE finding and one that SACS is hesitant to dole out. In fact, Edison is the ONLY institution to receive the integrity violation in the past three years. Since 2004, only six institutions have received integrity violations and a list of their findings are as follows:

Coahoma Community College - Section 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.11.1, Comprehensive Standards 3.10.3, 3.10.4, and Federal Requirement 4.7
Texas Southern University - Principle 1.1 (Integrity,) Core Requirement 2.11.1, Comprehensive Standards 3.10, 3.10.4, 3.10.5, 4.7
Bishop State Community College - 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.11.1, Comprehensive Standards 3.5.1, Federal Requirement 4.7
Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic - Principle 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirements 2.2, 2.12, Comprehensive Standards 3.2.4, 3.2.8, 3.7, 4.5
Texas College (Denied approval of Medical Health Care Assistant) - Section 1(Integrity), Comprehensive Standards 3.10., 3.10.4
Barber-Scotia College, Concord, NC - Section 1 (Integrity)

You will notice that none of these institutions received the number of Core Requirement and Comprehensive Standard violations that Edison has received in addition to the Integrity violation.
You should also be aware of the institutions that the SACS Commission have denied reaffirmation, continued accreditation, and placed on probation in recent years. Their findings are as follows:
1. Saint Paul’s College - Core Requirement 2.5, 2.10, 2.11.1, Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8, CS 3.3.1.2, CS 3.3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.10, 3.5.4, 3.7.1, 3.10.1, 3.10.4, 3.10.5, 3.11.3
2. Concordia College - Core Requirement 2.8, 2.11.1, Comprehensive Standard 3.10.1, 3.10.4, 3.10.5, 4.7

Edison’s findings most closely resemble those of Saint Paul’s College. You will notice that they received 3 Core Requirement violations and 11 Comprehensive Standard violations but they DID NOT receive an Integrity violation, which suggests that we are positioned more precariously than they were to be put on probation.