From: Cavanaugh, John

To: Quinn, Paul

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:14 AM

Subject: RE: AACSB

Paul,

Thanks for your note. See specific replies below.

John

From: Paul Quinn [mailto:quinn@kutztown.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Cavanaugh, John
Subject: Re: AACSB

Dr. Cavanaugh,

Thanks you for your email message this morning.  This is the first time we have had real clarity from PASSHE on this issue.  We are still trying to digest the impact of your words here on campus based on where we were in the accreditation process before your statements on Wednesday.

I have a few questions for you in regards to this matter.

1) So when you say that Kutztown needs to determine locally whether or not it wants to pursue AACSB accreditation, do you mean that the Kutztown Administration should determine it, or do you mean that the decision should be discussed through shared governance with the faculty and various governing bodies on campus?  I would say it needs to be discussed in a shared governance fashion, with very thorough discussion of the pros/cons. With AACSB, as I indicated in my remarks, there are real downsides for not doing it that should be considered. Some faculty indicated to me they came to Kutztown specifically because AACSB accreditation was a goal. Student recruitment also becomes an issue, as I discussed.

2) You refer to the shift in mandate that has happend these past few months in your email.  Has this shift been made known to the University Presidents prior to your statements on our campus? There has been general discussion only (i.e., that there would no longer be a mandate) recently. As a result, there have been no policy or procedure documents created yet.

3)Was State APSCUF made aware of this shift in mandate or the process that led to the shift in mandate via some sort of memo or the State Meet and Discuss meetings?  Because this change is very recent, I do not believe it has made it yet to the M&D at the state level (though I could be mistaken). That’s a result of the recency of the issue, nothing more. The actual process and details are still evolving, but in fairness to the campus I thought it would be an advance notice to make you aware of the upcoming changes. The performance funding task force will no doubt be recommending more when their work is completed; those will also be brought forward for discussion in appropriate venues (e.g., M&D). But because it had become clear that the accreditation mandate was not going to be one of them, I did not see a reason to withhold that information so decided to pass it along.

I apologize for the directness of my questions, but since your visit to our university, our College of Business has been thrown into a bit of chaos since WE were under the assumption that AACSB accreditation WAS a mandate until your statements on Wednesday.  I am just trying to construct a timeline to discern what happened and how to move forward.  Thanks for your time.  Your assumption was correct—it WAS a mandate until very recently.

Paul

I will try to provide additional updates later today or tomorrow.

Tags: AACSB, accreditation, apscuf-ku, apscuf-ku xchange, Chancellor Cavanaugh, college of business, kevin mahoney, passhe, union