SACS
FAQS
(Frequently Asked Questions Regarding AU's Probationary Status)
Updated: March 25, 2004
Summary: These questions are currently those most commonly asked
of the administration by students, parents, prospective students, staff,
faculty, and alumni. We have included a lot of questions and answers
in the hopes that all of your concerns are addressed. We have grouped
the questions based on the complexity of the answers required:
| 1. basic questions about what SACS, probation and accreditation are and what they mean to students |
| 2. questions about what led to AU being placed on probation |
| 3. questions about actions AU is taking, has taken or could take to make sure it stays accredited |
AU will periodically update these Q&As to keep you informed about our plans to respond to probation as we decide on them. Please visit again for these updates.
BASIC QUESTIONS REGARDING SACS, PROBATION,
AND ACCREDITATION AND WHAT THEY MEAN TO STUDENTS
Q: What
is SACS?
A: SACS is an association that schools and colleges join. SACS stands
for the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools. SACS gives accreditation
to schools that meet good education standards in the southern part of
the United States. Other parts of the country have their own associations
that give accreditation. AU is a member of SACS and believes strongly
in its principles.
Q: What is accreditation?
A: Accreditation is a way of telling the public that a college or school
meets certain academic, administrative and financial standards. It helps
keep the quality of education high. Many products or industries all
over the world have similar ways of making sure standards are high;
for example, the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" means
a product you are buying has met certain quality standards. Accreditation
is basically a "seal of approval" that lets students know
that a school is run the right way and provides a good education. AU
is an accredited school and is committed to keeping its accreditation.
In many fields (such as business, engineering,
veterinary medicine, and many more), professional organizations also
accredit programs related to those specific educational areas. AU can
be proud of its dozens of programs accredited by these other organizations.
SACS accreditation is more general and looks at the whole college.
Q: How does a college get accredited?
A: A school or college gets accredited the first time by proving it
meets all the standards. Then, a school is usually reviewed again every
10 years. It takes a couple of years to get ready for each review. AU
has been getting ready for its 10-year review since spring of 2001.
That review, which is not connected in any way with probation, is scheduled
for February 2004. The SACS probation is the result of a separate review
of just a few standards.
Q: What is probation?
A: SACS has 450 standards colleges must meet. When SACS is concerned
that a school isn't following all the standards, or doesn't have the
right documents to show that it is following the standards, it can send
the school a private notice, send a public warning, or put it on probation
for a period of time (usually a year or two years). In December 2003,
SACS decided to put AU on probation rather than give a warning or notice;
SACS wants more evidence that AU is doing things the right way in five
of the 450 standards.
Q: Why didn't AU meet the requirements in those five areas?
A: SACS doesn't usually point to the specific reasons or particular
facts; they only list the broader areas that they want more evidence
about. AU was not put on probation because of any problems with academic
quality or financial management; academics and finances at AU are widely
thought of as excellent.
While the administration was surprised
at the probation decision because the president and many others thought
they had provided everything needed, the
probation period does allow AU the time to produce what SACS wants.
Plus, SACS told AU in its letter that "Auburn University and its
Board of Trustees have provided examples of progress toward compliance
with the Criteria," which is a good thing. AU believes it is being
run the right way, and will work to give SACS the information to prove
it.
Q: Does that mean probation isn't that serious?
A: Absolutely not. AU takes probation very seriously, just as any school
should. The president and the Board of Trustees have made keeping accreditation
their highest priority, and are already working on providing everything
SACS has asked for. AU believes in accreditation. AU knows that students
and their parents want an AU degree to keep its high value, and that
they also want financial aid funds that help the university overall
and its students. So, AU will do whatever it takes to keep accreditation.
Q: What happens if AU loses its accreditation?
A: First, everyone needs to know AU is doing everything as requested
to make sure loss of accreditation doesn't happen, just as other major
universities that have been put on probation have done in the past.
There has never been a major institution of Auburn's size and stature
that has lost accreditation. We are confident that by working with SACS
and providing the documents they want to see, we will remain accredited.
Withdrawal of accreditation happens only
when problems are so serious that it is hard for the school to stay
open or for students to be sure they're getting a quality education.
Some smaller colleges and schools have lost accreditation, usually because
of very bad financial management. This loss in most cases meant the
schools lost money from the federal government to pay for students'
financial aid and scholarships, and that the schools weren't where most
people would choose to go for an education. Plus, many employers and
graduate schools prefer students graduate from an accredited school.
If a college has an outstanding academic
reputation and is financially sound, like AU, it probably won't lose
accreditation unless it shows a complete lack of cooperation and blatant
disregard of rules. AU intends to cooperate fully with SACS. If for
some reason SACS needs even more information than what we give them
in response to probation, the probation time would probably be extended.
Loss of accreditation at AU is unlikely because it would not only hurt
more than 23,000 students, but also because AU meets nearly all the
other membership criteria, is managed very well, and has a great academic
reputation.
Q: What does probation mean for my degree?
A: AU's academic reputation remains very good; none of the information
SACS has asked for relates to academics. Anyone with an AU degree has
evidence of an excellent education!
Q: I got my degree at AU in 1987. If the university loses accreditation,
how does that affect me?
A: Again, the university is very confident that by working with SACS
and responding to each concern, AU will remain accredited. However,
if someone receives a degree from any institution that was fully accredited
at the time they received their degree, then future loss of accreditation
does not change the degree's value. Loss of accreditation is not retroactive!
It relates only to the time at hand.
Q: I'm a senior at AU planning to graduate this summer 2004. If AU
loses accreditation in December, I'm worried that will affect my job
prospects.
A: See the answer to the question above. AU remains fully accredited,
and your degree, should you graduate as planned this summer, will be
from a fully accredited institution.
Q: Have other universities lost accreditation?
A: A few smaller colleges have lost accreditation, almost always due
to poor financial management. There is no instance of a major college
or university ever losing accreditation, even after being put on probation.
For instance, Georgia Tech, which is without question a top quality
university, was put on probation for one year in 1997, and after working
with SACS like AU is doing, kept their accreditation. Accreditation
is so important that major institutions like AU don't hesitate to do
whatever it takes to preserve it. A few other major institutions have
also been put on probation this year and are working, like AU, to provide
whatever SACS needs to preserve their membership in good standing.
Fortunately, AU's financial management
is generally regarded as not only the best in the state, but among the
best in the Southeast. AU also has an academic ranking in the top 50
of public schools in the nation.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RECENT HISTORY LEADING
UP TO PROBATION
Q: What led to AU being put on probation?
A: The process that led to AU's probation goes back more than two years.
A committee filed a complaint with SACS about Board governance, among
other things. After a time in court when AU asked the judge to make
sure the right rules were being followed, the process that started with
the complaint led to a review, and the review ended in December 2003
with the conclusion that SACS needed more information to show that AU
has corrected the concerns. Since that time two-and-a-half years ago,
AU has done some positive things to address the concerns. But because
the review of these concerns was separate from AU's regular 10-year
accreditation review, SACS may not have seen all that has already been
done. And, there are still more things AU can do to meet the SACS standards.
Q: If AU has already provided information for SACS requirements while
preparing for the recent 10-year review, why can't SACS lift probation
now rather than wait until December?
A: AU did a "self study" of its compliance with all 450 SACS
standards in preparation for the regular 10-year accreditation review
in February, 2004. A SACS team came to campus in February and examined
445 of the 450 criteria required for re-accreditation; the remaining
five criteria that are connected to the probation concerns will be reviewed
separately. The report from this visiting committee concerning the 445
was, as reported by Interim President Richardson, “superb.”
The results reportedly “far surpassed” AU’s successful
re-accreditation review 10 years ago.
Both the self study and the report of the visiting evaluators provide
information to SACS for AU’s re-accreditation. But, SACS only meets
twice a year, so AU's status will be reviewed at the December 2004 meeting.
Q: If
AU is committed to accreditation, why did it sue SACS?
A: AU has always supported the principles of "peer review"
in the accreditation process because, at its best, accreditation provides
a way of measuring quality. When AU took SACS to court, the university
was not disagreeing with those standards. AU simply asked the court
to step in and ensure that SACS followed its own rules for investigating
complaints. The court judged that AU's request was a proper one. Ultimately,
both SACS and AU agreed to let an independent investigator look at the
complaint.
Early in 2004, Interim President Richardson withdrew the option to sue
SACS over the probation decision, making clear to SACS that AU intends
to fully cooperate with the accreditation process. Since removing that
option also removed obstacles to communicating directly with SACS, Interim
President Richardson, along with Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, visited SACS
personally in Atlanta to re-establish positive communications between
AU and SACS.
Q: Were
the results of that investigation bad?
A: The first investigation found no lack of compliance by AU in the
areas mentioned in the complaint. SACS asked for a second investigation
to explore other questions about those areas. The results of that investigation
were sealed by the U.S. District Court to protect participants' sensitive
personal information, and, as required by U.S. Banking laws, private
financial information.
Q: If
the investigation officially showed "no lack of compliance,"
then why is AU under probation?
A: SACS obviously wants further assurance, through documentation, that
AU has institutionalized (made permanent) some of the positive actions
already taken and other actions of which SACS does not yet have sufficient
evidence. Our intent is to show them that AU is complying.
Q: Does
the trip the former president took to Louisville that was talked about
so much have anything to do with AU being put on probation?
A: There is no connection at all. The probation, again, relates to a
complaint initially filed more than two years ago.
QUESTIONS REGARDING ACTIONS AU IS TAKING, HAS TAKEN OR COULD TAKE IN RESPONSE TO PROBATION CONCERNS
Update
on most recent actions:
May 7, 2004: The Auburn University Board of Trustees unanimously
adopted two
resolutions clarifying its roles in governance and athletics. One
resolution stated the commitment of the board and the university to
the accreditation process, and the other redefined the board's responsibilities
for intercollegiate athletics.
April 27, 2004: President Richardson requested and was granted
an extension by SACS to reply to the probationary concerns, moving the
response date from the end of April to May 14, 2004. This will allow
actions taken at the May 7 called meeting of the Board of Trustees to
be incorporated into the response.
March 19, 2004: At the March 19 Board of Trustees meeting, President
Richardson announced that he has requested an extension to the deadline
to respond to SACS regarding the five probationary concerns to May 14
(from the earlier date at the end of April). He did so to call a special
BOT meeting May 7 to re-affirm policies about micromanagement and conflicts
of interest, and pass resolutions on other policies as needed, all of
which respond to SACS concerns.
February 20, 2004: President Richardson and Alabama Gov. Bob
Riley visited the SACS offices in Atlanta after the February 5 announcement
to re-establish open, positive lines of communications between AU and
SACS.
February 5, 2004: President Richardson announced to the AU Board
of Trustees that he had decided that AU would not challenge in court
SACS' decision to place AU on probation. This significant decision demonstrates
AU's commitment to complying with SACS criteria, especially the criterion
regarding cooperation in the accreditation process. Further, it encourages
more open communication between the president and the accrediting body.
Q: What
other actions been taken by AU to respond to probation?
A: AU is in the process of planning responses to each of the five concerns,
which relate back to a complaint filed with SACS in 2001. Since then,
AU has already taken many positive steps, even before probation was
announced.
Because of Alabama's "sunshine" laws, unannounced meetings
of the Board of Trustees are not allowed; any decision about how the
Board responds to SACS probation must be voted on at an open meeting
of the full board. Any resolution they make regarding actions can be
used as additional information and documentation in responding to SACS.
The next formal meeting of the Board is May 7, 2004, when re-affirmation
and/or establishment of policies regarding the areas of concern will
occur.
Q: Can
AU give examples of what could be done for each of the five problem
areas?
A: Yes, we can give examples, although at this point they are only examples,
not fact. We can also tell you about positive things already done in
connection with our regular, 10-year re-accreditation meeting with SACS
in February 2004. Following are examples of the "policies, procedures,
resolutions and bylaws" that SACS tells us we can include in our
response. Remember these are only examples provided to
increase your understanding. In actuality, there are many actions that
can be taken, and those included here may not be part of AU's final
plan.
|
1.
|
For Section 1.1 (referred to as Institutional Commitment and Responsibility in the Accreditation Process), SACS requests that members of the Board of Trustees certify in writing his or her commitment to the accreditation process, and pledge that the university will cooperate in the evaluation process. The Board could respond in writing, and/or pass a unanimous resolution - certified and documented in the official meeting minutes - of such commitment. |
|
2.
|
For Section 1.4 (referred to as Condition of Eligibility Three), SACS requests documentation to show the appropriate roles of the President and the Board are observed, to ensure the Board is not controlled by a minority of members, and that members do not have financial or other ties with the institution that would create a conflict of interest. The president pro tem of the Board has already decided to convene a committee governing conflicts of interest, once the five new members of the Board who have been nominated are approved. Also, AU could modify the presidential job description to clearly define the presidential role, and the university or Board can update policy manuals with language prohibiting such conflicts of interest as appropriate. |
|
3.
|
For Section 5.5.3 (referred to as Intercollegiate Athletics: Financial Control), SACS requests documentation that the president has control over athletic funds. Prior to SACS probation, the AU administration had already called for the formation of a separate foundation to govern athletic funds so that no misperception regarding presidential control would exist. Additionally, the AU administration has ordered an audit to guarantee that AU is in compliance with this standard. The audit will provide ample documentation. |
|
4.
|
For Section 5.5.2 (referred to as Intercollegiate Athletics: Administrative Oversight), SACS requests documentation showing that ultimate control over the athletics program rests with the president. Here, AU can include an official statement in its policy manual more clearly showing that this control is an absolute requirement, or provide other types of documentation as determined by the Board. |
|
5.
|
For Section 6.1.2 (referred to as Governing Board), SACS requests documentation showing a clear distinction between the policy-making functions of the governing Board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy. In this area, AU could clearly define the policymaking role of the administration in the presidential job description, and perhaps in a Board member "oath of office." AU could also outline a written policy and/or take other written action to satisfy the requirement. In the last two years, prior to notice of probation, AU has also invited faculty to sit as non-voting members of the Board, and to sit in all Board committees as non-voting members, to ensure faculty are involved at the highest levels. |
Q: I
keep hearing about a "self study" and Auburn's meeting with
SACS in February. Are these related to probation, and are they important?
A: AU's regular 10-year accreditation committee visit by SACS was
in February 2004. SACS will look at the report of this visiting committee
in December 2004. This committee will focus on all of the 450 SACS standards
except the five that are being reviewed during probation. In a separate
process, AU will respond to the five probation concerns by May 7,
2004, and a SACS team will probably visit AU to review those five areas
in October 2004, which SACS will also look at in its December meeting.
All schools and colleges do a "self
study" to prepare for their regular 10-year visits from SACS. Since
AU looked at all of the 450 standards SACS requires in its self study,
including the ones noted in its probation letter, AU feels this study
is important in connection with probation.
Another reason the self-study is important:
AU administrators and faculty will to respond to all 99 internal suggestions
and recommendations made by the self study steering committee. Although
a response for internal suggestions is certainly not required by SACS,
AU did it anyway. This response demonstrates a strong commitment to
the principles of accreditation.