Pictured Above: This Oct. 5 story on The Crow’s Nest website prompted concerns from the agency that accredits USF.
Sophie Ojdanic | The Crow’s Nest
By Nancy McCann
The agency that accredits USF wrote President Steve Currall this fall to raise concerns that Florida legislators might be exerting “undue influence” on the consolidation process.
The reason? Published comments by Sen. Jeff Brandes that lawmakers are so perturbed that they may amend the law to better protect the St. Petersburg campus, make changes to the USF Board of Trustees, and even cut the university’s budget.
Not to worry, the university responded.
“The (USF) Board of Trustees continues to move forward with consolidation as presented and approved notwithstanding the expressions of Legislators,” the university said in a lengthy response that is included in a voluminous report that was submitted to the agency, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), on Dec. 11.
And what does Brandes – the St. Petersburg legislator who figures in the exchange – think about that?
“I don’t think about SACS (the accrediting agency),” he told The Crow’s Nest on Monday. “I think about what’s best for the university and not what’s best for the accrediting body, and ultimately those two will align.”
Brandes said legislators still intend to press ahead with plans to “reshape and reform” the trustees, the 13-member board that governs USF, and push new legislation designed to “ensure the long-term success” of the St. Petersburg campus.
He also clarified that he doesn’t want to dismiss any of the trustees – just replace some of them when their five-year terms expire.
Brandes was one of the key Pinellas County legislators who stunned the St. Petersburg campus in January 2018 with a proposal to abolish the independent accreditation of St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee and fold them into a single accreditation with the huge Tampa campus.
Legislators brushed aside the hot objections of St. Petersburg and its allies in local government and business and enacted the proposal into law in March 2018. Six months ago, consolidation became official.
As the USF administration planned and implemented consolidation, however, Brandes grew increasingly vocal in his criticism of how the university is treating St. Petersburg.
In comments published by The Crow’s Nest on its website on Oct. 5, the senator called out the trustees and said legislators might take action to replace some of them. He also said that the USF administration was not transparent, that the university’s budget might be cut and that legislators might amend the law to ensure that the two smaller branch campuses are protected.
It was that article – headlined “Legislator to trustees: You’re flunking consolidation” – that drew the attention of Denise Y. Young, a vice president of SACSCOC.
In an email to Currall on Oct. 30, Young said that the Crow’s Nest story “raises questions about the University of South Florida’s ongoing compliance” with the accrediting agency’s Principles of Accreditation (See the full email below).
Under SACSCOC’s requirements, Young said, a university’s governing board (in this case the Board of Trustees) cannot be controlled “by organizations or institutions separate from it.”
The governing board must have “appropriate and fair processes” for the dismissal of a member, Young said, and must protect the university “from undue influence by external persons or bodies.”
She directed the university to respond to Brandes’ comments.
Documenting compliance
Her email and the university’s response are in a voluminous “self-study” that the USF administration submitted to the agency on Dec. 11 and posted for the university community on Dec. 18.
Although the SACSCOC executive committee approved USF’s plans for consolidation on June 12 and it took effect July 1, the agency requires the university to submit a self-study extensively documenting that it is complying with the agency’s Principles of Accreditation.
That will be followed by a virtual site visit by a SACSCOC committee on Jan. 26-28.
In a lengthy response to the accrediting agency’s directive, the university dismissed The Crow’s Nest’s stories on consolidation as “one view point (sic) reported by earnest student journalists” that “does not represent university policy” (See the response below).
State legislators “do enjoy the same rights of free expression as any other citizen of the state” and they may propose legislation, the university said, but “to date, no such legislation has emerged.”
The comments of legislators, including “statements about hypothetical legislation, do not suggest” that the trustees have failed to fulfill their duties, the university said.
“Even if the concerns expressed by legislators did rise to the level of undue influence, the Board of Trustees has not revised any approved plans for consolidation or publicly questioned the university’s implementation of same,” the university said.
In fact, legislators have clearly influenced the implementation of consolidation.
Under pressure from key lawmakers and others, the university administration has twice walked back plans that would have significantly weakened the authority of Regional Chancellor Martin Tadlock, abandoned talk of a single budget for all three campuses, devised a strategy to boost St. Petersburg’s badly sagging enrollment, and embraced a plan to create five “academic clusters” that would give the campus some distinctive offerings.
Much of the university’s statement to SACSCOC elaborates on its assertion that the “Legislature does not have the authority to independently remove trustees.”
But the statement also says that the Florida Senate “may remove or suspend a trustee through a statutorily defined process,” but only after the governor has suspended the trustee for “malfeasance, neglect of duties, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.”
No USF trustee has ever been removed, the statement says, and “there is no record of a trustee engaging in behavior that would implicate the constitutionally enumerated grounds for dismissal.”
‘Significant influence’
In an interview with The Crow’s Nest on Monday, Brandes said USF administrators had not shared the self-study with him but had discussed with his staff the accrediting agency’s concerns about his published comments.
He agreed with the administration that the Legislature by itself cannot dismiss members of the Board of Trustees, but stressed that it does have a say in who gets appointed to five-year terms.
Six of the 13 trustees are appointed by the governor and five by the state board that oversees the state’s 12 public universities – and all 11 must be confirmed by the Florida Senate. The presidents of the USF Faculty Senate and Student Government also are trustees.
Legislators “work with the governor’s office to identify key community leaders that we believe would be strong advocates” on the Board of Trustees, Brandes said.
“I don’t think anyone (on the current board) has done anything worthy to get removed,” he said. “But I do think that there are many options coming up in 2021 to reshape and reform the trustees based on the current … terms.”
Two trustees’ terms expire this year and six trustees’ terms expire in 2021.
Brandes also scoffed at the accrediting agency’s concerns about the Legislature’s influence on USF and its trustees.
“Ultimately, we control their (USF’s) budget, so there is significant influence,” he said. “It may not be direct influence … but we absolutely have indirect influence on their Board of Trustees and … their budget.”
He declined to describe the consolidation-related legislation that is being drafted, saying only it would help “ensure the long-term success of USF St. Pete.”
“I want what’s best for the university – period,” Brandes said. “And I think right now that is reforming the Board of Trustees, (devising) a clear, concise plan for USF St. Pete and USF (Sarasota)-Manatee, and ensuring the long-term success of the overall USF system.”
Asked if he would follow up with Currall or Provost Ralph Wilcox on the issues raised in the university’s exchange with the accrediting agency, Brandes said this:
“No. They (SACSCOC) are not going to rent space in my brain.”
Despite what the university says in its self-study, Pinellas legislators have clearly had an impact on the consolidation process.
Although he has not been as publicly vocal as Brandes, Rep. Chris Sprowls – who as speaker of the Florida House of Representatives is one of the most powerful people in state government – has also been influential.
In May 2019, the Legislature amended the statutes to ensure that St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee would be full branch campuses when consolidation took effect.
And when Currall released a proposed organizational blueprint four months later that would have undercut the authority of USF’s two regional chancellors, Sprowls intervened.
He accompanied Currall when the president met with the Tampa Bay Times editorial board in October 2019 to walk back his plan.
Two months ago, Sprowls stepped in again, this time to join Brandes in announcing that Currall and trustees Chair Jordan Zimmerman were committed to dramatically increasing St. Petersburg’s badly sagging enrollment by next summer and fall.
Meanwhile, Brandes was a driving force behind the USF administration’s new five-year plan – announced last month – to create five “academic clusters” in St. Petersburg that would give the campus distinctive programs and help increase enrollment. Two weeks later, Brandes told Currall he wants to discuss returning control of student admissions to the St. Petersburg campus.
‘Undue influence by external persons or bodies’
This is the email that Denise Y. Young, a vice president of the regional accrediting agency, sent to USF President Steve Currall on Oct. 30:
Dear Dr. Currall:
SACSCOC policy stipulates that SACSCOC give appropriate consideration to significant accreditation-related unsolicited information revealed about an institution between periods of scheduled review and provides that an institution be afforded the opportunity to respond to concerns raised by the review of the unsolicited information.
An article published on October 5, 2020, in The Crows Nest (student newspaper at the USF St. Petersburg campus) regarding consolidation raises questions about the University of South Florida’s ongoing compliance with the Principles of Accreditation. The article is attached.
The following statements are excerpted from the article:
•“Perturbed at the way the USF administration and trustees are handling consolidation, Pinellas County legislators intend to intervene again. State Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, warned Monday that the Legislature may take action to replace some members of the 13-member Board of Trustees and amend the law – again – to ensure that the St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee campuses are protected. ”
• “But it is Brandes who has become the Pinellas delegation’s outspoken point person on consolidation. In interviews Monday and two weeks ago, he has called out the trustees, suggested that administrators are not transparent and hinted that the Legislature might retaliate by cutting USF’s budget.”
In particular, this article (and reports by other media such as The Tampa Bay Times) raises concerns about the following SACSCOC core requirement and standards:
• Core Requirement 4.1 The institution has a governing board of at least five members that: (b) exercises fiduciary oversight of the institution. (Note: not just the Tampa campus) (d) is not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or institutions separate from it.
• Standard 4.2.e The governing board has appropriate and fair processes for the dismissal of a board member. (Board dismissal)
• Standard 4.2.f The governing board protects the institution from undue influence by external persons or bodies. (External influence)
The above-listed core requirement and standards are part of the documentation that the University of South Florida is scheduled to provide to members of the Substantive Change Committee by December 14, 2020, in advance of their January virtual visit. In addition to the information that USF has already planned to submit on Core Requirement 4.1 and Standards 4.2.e and 4.2.f, please ensure that the institution’s response on these items specifically address the relevant issues raised in the October 5, 2020, article in The Crow’s Nest. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
‘USF has not changed its course regarding consolidation’
Here are excerpts from the university’s response to the accrediting agency’s concerns. The response is part of the lengthy self-study that was sent to the agency on Dec. 11:
4.1 (item b): The email from SACSCOC about unsolicited information discussed in Part I of this documentation [21] instructed USF to address the relevant issues raised in an October 5, 2020, article in The Crow’s Nest [22], the student run newspaper on the St. Petersburg campus, related to fiduciary oversight of the consolidated USF, not just oversight of the Tampa campus. The Crow’s Nest article reports that Florida Legislators may attempt to remove members of the BOT and/or enact legislation to align USF’s implementation of consolidation with their particular interpretation of statutes regarding consolidation. As a threshold matter, the Florida Legislature does not have the authority to independently remove Trustees. The Florida Constitution describes the composition, appointment and removal of trustees (see section 4.2.e). Put another way, the material terms of trustee appointments are established in the Florida Constitution and not in a discrete statute that could be easily amended.
At the same time, members of the Florida Legislature do enjoy the same rights of free expression as any other citizen of the state and they may propose legislation consistent with their constitutionally authorized powers and duties. To date, no such legislation has emerged. However, the expressions of Legislators, including statements about hypothetical legislation do not suggest that USF’s BOT or any of the BOT’s members have failed to fulfill their duties related to fiduciary oversight of the consolidated USF, including the branch campuses in St. Petersburg and Sarasota. In fact, the expression of Legislator(s) suggesting that USF change course on its implementation of consolidation is proof that USF has not changed its course regarding consolidation and that the BOT remains committed to the plans approved to implement consolidation. Indeed, if the BOT were moving in lockstep with the expressions of a Legislator, then there would be no need for that same Legislator to express an opinion to the contrary.
As fiduciaries, USF trustees have three primary duties. First, trustees owe a duty of obedience to the law, to USF’s governing documents and policies, and to the terms and conditions of all contractual agreements executed by USF. As an example, trustees fulfilled this duty by their public discussions to identify an allowable balance between statutory language regarding consolidation and SACSCOC’s requirements regarding the authority of branch campus advisory boards relative to the USF President.
Second, trustees owe a duty of loyalty to USF, which includes prioritizing USF’s interests and well-being above the BOT member’s own self-interest. There is no indication that trustees have deviated from this duty. As noted above, trustees have come into public criticism for their continuing support of the plans approved for consolidation.
Third, trustees owe a duty of care, including reasonable inquiry that an ordinarily prudent person would use under similar circumstances. As an example, trustees engaged in an extended workshop on consolidation, including timelines and requirements for deliverables.
It is safe to assume that multiple issues on consolidation will continue to appear in The Crow’s Nest. However, The Crow’s Nest represents one view point reported by earnest student journalists; it does not represent university policy or action and does not translate to legislation. On the other hand, the consistent actions of the BOT reflect that it remains committed to discharging its fiduciary duties in general and as to consolidation in particular.
4.2.e: The Florida Constitution establishes the methods for removal of trustees [4]. The Governor may suspend any trustee from office for “malfeasance, neglect of duties, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony” by issuing an executive order stating the grounds for suspension.
The Florida Senate may remove or suspend a trustee through a statutorily defined process [5]. The process provides a suspended trustee a hearing before a select committee or special magistrate, with the suspended trustee notified sufficiently in advance to fully and adequately prepare a defense. The trustee is entitled to present the defense individually or thorough an attorney in a full and complete public hearing [6].
The USF BOT does not have the authority to directly dismiss its members; therefore, it does not have its own policy governing dismissal and defers to the dismissal policies and procedures outlined above for the Florida Governor and Florida Senate. However, the BOT Chair has the duty, pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 1001.71(4) [7], to notify the BOG or the Governor, as applicable, in writing whenever a Board member has three (3) consecutive unexcused absences from regular board meetings in any fiscal year. Unexcused absences may be grounds for removal by the Governor or the BOG, as applicable.
No USF trustee has ever been removed for cause or been the subject of an investigation by the Florida Commission on Ethics. Implementation examples are thus unavailable because no dismissals have occurred.
The email from SACSCOC about unsolicited information described in Part I of this documentation [8] instructed USF to address the relevant issues raised in an October 5, 2020, article in The Crow’s Nest [9], the student run newspaper on the St. Petersburg campus, related to processes for the dismissal of trustees. As is described in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs above, the BOT does not have the authority to dismiss its members because the state constitution vests that authority in the Senate, if and only if the Governor first suspends the trustee. The Governor can only suspend the trustee, and hence initiate the process of dismissing the trustee, for the reasons specified in Article IV, Section 7 of the State Constitution, to wit, for “malfeasance, neglect of duties, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.”
Notwithstanding that the process for removal of a trustees is not vested with the university by the Florida Constitution, the process that is described in the Constitution for removal of a trustee provides for due process in the form of notice of grounds for dismissal and a full hearing. As such, there is no reason to suggest that USF is in noncompliance with this SACSCOC Standard.
It should also be noted that since the formation of the USF Board of Trustees, there is no record of a trustee engaging in behavior that would implicate the constitutionally enumerated grounds for dismissal and no attempt has been made to dismiss any BOT members for the constitutionally enumerated grounds.
4.2.f: The email from SACSCOC about unsolicited information described in Part I of this documentation [11] instructed USF to address the issues raised in an October 5, 2020, article in The Crow’s Nest [12], the student run newspaper on the St. Petersburg campus, related to the BOT’s protection of USF from undue influence by external persons or bodies. The Crow’s Nest article reports that elected officials have expressed concern about “the way the USF administration and trustees are handling consolidation” and that they have referred to legislative options they may consider to align the university’s implementation of consolidation with the original legislative intent of consolidation. However, a careful reading of the SACSCOC Resource Manual is required here. The “Rationale and Notes” section of the Resource Manual notes:
Effective governing boards adhere to the laws and regulations that underpin the institution’s legitimacy while championing its right to operate without unreasonable intrusions by governmental and nongovernmental agencies and entities. This applies to any governing board, whether public, private not-for-profit, or private for-profit. The board protects and preserves the institution’s independence from outside pressures.
“Undue” influence does not mean “no” influence. Elected officials, corporate offices, alumni associations, and religious denominational bodies are examples of persons or bodies that appropriately have interests in the activities of related colleges and universities. However, the governing board of the institution has been vested with the authority to make decisions regarding the institution, and no outside person, board, or religious or legislative body should be in a position to interfere with the governing board’s ultimate authority to fulfill its responsibilities or to interfere in the operations of the institution. (Emphasis added by USF.)
Given the multi-level governance processes that apply to state universities in the State of Florida, which are described in detail in Section 4.3 below, it is not clear that the concerns expressed by legislators and others in The Crow’s Nest article constitute undue influence, since the legislature is authorized by Florida Statute 1001, Section 705(3) [13] to make “provision by law for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning.” But even if the concerns expressed by legislators did rise to the level of undue influence, the Board of Trustees has not revised any approved plans for consolidation or publicly questioned the university’s implementation of same. Individual University Trustees, just as Legislators, may from time-to-time, express their own views on matters of public concern, but the Board of Trustees continues to move forward with consolidation as presented and approved notwithstanding the expressions of Legislators. Therefore, there is no indication that the BOT is not protecting USF “from undue influence by external persons or bodies”, which would be required to find USF out of compliance with this SACSCOC Standard.
4.3: The Legislature’s decision, with the requisite approval of the Governor, to consolidate the SACSCOC accreditations of USF in Tampa, USF SP, and USF S-M is appropriate legislative action that is consistent with the Legislature’s legal authority to establish institutions of higher learning, as specified in Florida Statute 1001, Section 705(3)(a) [6]. Although some states would view the Legislature’s decision to consolidate universities as undue influence by an external body, or as legislative meddling in affairs otherwise normally handled by a governing board, the State of Florida does not hold that stance, as documented in the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.
