Since the Academy refuses to update its stakeholders on the status of its efforts to avoid losing accreditation (today marks 270 days since the last update), I’ve just submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for whatever response the Academy sent to MSCHE. (The response that was due on March 1, 2017.) Here’s a copy of the request.
A source has told me that Superintendent Helis did submit some sort of response; but, according to the source, that response is closely held by the administration. No telling whether it was a request for an extension of time or an actual substantive response. But with this lastest FOIA request, hopefully we will find out.
BTW, the deadline for responding to the last FOIA request was Friday, March 24, 2017. DOT missed the deadline. Needless to say, I’m following up.
UPDATE: A source tells me that MARAD claims that it no longer “owns” the monitoring report submitted to MSCHE and that it cannot release the report until MSCHE releases its findings (likely in June 2018). I happen to know, however, that MSCHE takes the position that while MSCHE will not release a monitoring report, MSCHE’s policies do not have any impact on an institution’s requirement to release a document that is subject to disclosure under a law or regulation such as the Freedom of Information Act. So we’ll just have to wait and see how MARAD actually responds to the request.
All of this begs the real question — why wouldn’t the Academy want its stakeholders to know how it has responded to the Accreditation Warning? Why won’t it voluntarily produce the document. Why hasn’t it posted it on the Academy’s website – you know, the “USMMA Reaccreditation Update” page? (The page that hasn’t been updated in 270 days as of today.)
Wouldn’t you think that the Academy would be proud of how well it responded to MSCHE’s concerns and want to share that with the public? (I wish I had enough confidence in the Academy’s leadership so that such a musing could be considered realistic rather than fantastic.)