FAMU still faces accreditation review over trustee's alleged interference
It's been over a month since Florida A&M University was asked by its accrediting agency about an unnamed Florida A&M University trustee interfering with "faculty employment."
The group's scrutiny of the issue remains ongoing.
While FAMU President-elect Marva Johnson is up for confirmation by the Florida Board of Governors soon, chances of the university's case being closed by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) by then are slim.
'The next SACSCOC Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for next week, but this case is not on the agenda, as it's too early in the unsolicited information process,' SACSCOC Vice President Geoffrey Klein said in an email sent to the Tallahassee Democrat June 3. 'It is unlikely that this case will be concluded by the next Board of Governors meeting on June 18th.'
It's still not known whether the inquiry is connected to the university's presidential search that has led to angst from alumni, students and others about political influence in Johnson's selection and a lack of transparency in the process as frustrations run high.
The commission's update comes about a month and a half after it sent an 'Unsolicited Information Request' letter to FAMU interim President Timothy Beard, dated April 24.
More: Accreditation agency requests FAMU report after 'unsolicited information' raises questions
Although Beard told the FAMU Board of Trustees at an April meeting that a report would be sent to the agency by May 19, Klein says he does not have any additional information to provide as the case remains open.
Also, when FAMU trustee Craig Reed asked what the inquiry focused on, Beard reiterated the language in the letter but did not offer any additional insight.
All communications of accreditation-related findings associated with the accrediting agency's member institutions, including FAMU, will be posted on its website following any action by the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, Klein said.
Tarah Jean is the higher education reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat, a member of the USA TODAY Network – Florida. She can be reached at tjean@tallahassee.com. Follow her on X: @tarahjean_.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Trustee actions at center of ongoing FAMU accreditation scrutiny
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Advertisement Those who have sued Sig Sauer in New Hampshire and elsewhere include police, federal law enforcement officers, and other experienced gun users from multiple states who say they were wounded by the gun. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up The manufacturer has prevailed in some cases. It is appealing two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. George Abrahams a U.S. Army veteran and painting contractor in Philadelphia who won his case, said he had holstered his P320, put it in the pocket of his athletic pants and zipped it up before going downstairs. 'All I did was come down the stairway and there was a loud explosion, and then the excruciating pain and bleeding,' he told The Associated Press in 2022. He said the bullet tore through his right thigh. The company, which employs over 2,000 people in a state with permissive gun laws, says the P320 has internal safety mechanisms and 'has undergone the most rigorous testing and evaluation of any firearm, by military and law enforcement agencies around the world.' It says the problem is user error or incompatible holsters, not the design. Advertisement 'Do you want people to be able to sue car manufacturers because they sell cars that don't have air conditioning?' state Rep. Terry Roy, a Republican from Deerfield, told the House during debate in May. Opponents criticized the bill as a special exemption in liability law that has never been granted to any other New Hampshire company. 'I think there is a difference between helping out a large employer and creating an exemption that actually hurts people and doesn't give them their day in court,' state Rep. David Meuse, a Democrat from Portsmouth, said in an interview. His district covers Newington, where Sig Sauer is headquartered. A 2005 federal law gives the gun industry broad legal immunity. New Hampshire was already among 32 states that have adopted gun immunity laws in some form, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Some states also have repealed gun industry immunity statutes or weakened them. Sig Sauer seeks help A Sig Sauer executive asked New Hampshire lawmakers for help in April, two weeks after a Pennsylvania-based law firm filed its most recent lawsuit in federal court in Concord on March 26 over the design of the P320. The firm represents over 100 people who have filed such lawsuits, including more than 70 in New Hampshire. 'We're fighting all these court cases out of town and every single court case we have to fight takes away money from Granite State residents and workers that we can employ and technology,' testified Bobby Cox, vice president of governmental affairs for the company. Advertisement The measure took effect once Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed it on May 23. Legislators said it doesn't apply to the current lawsuits. However, lawyers for Sig Sauer mentioned it as part of their argument to dismiss the March case or break up and transfer the claims of 22 plaintiffs to court districts where they live. A hearing on the matter is set for July 21. Ayotte's office did not respond to an AP request seeking comment, but it told The Keene Sentinel that she's 'proud to protect New Hampshire companies that create thousands of good-paying jobs from frivolous lawsuits.' 'Out-of-state trial lawyers looking to make money will not find a venue in New Hampshire,' Ayotte's office said in an emailed statement to the newspaper. Robert Zimmerman, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in Pennsylvania, said the goal of the lawsuits is to get the weapon's design changed so that it's safe for the people who use it. New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, Zimmerman said. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. 'Sig is trying to strategically decentralize this case and make every client go to 100 different courthouses and slow down the process for both sides to get a just outcome, which is a trial that is decided on the merits,' Zimmerman said in an interview. Sig Sauer gets protection The lawsuits accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design and marketing and negligence. During the House debate, Roy said he owns a P320 and it's one of his favorite guns, 'but you can buy them with or without safeties.' Advertisement The plaintiffs say 'the vast majority' of P320 models sold don't come with the safety, 'even as an option.' Sig Sauer says some users prefer the faster draw time granted by the absence of an external safety; others want the feature for added security. Sig Sauer offered a 'voluntary upgrade' in 2017 to include an alternate design that reduces the weight of the trigger, among other features. The plaintiffs' lawyers say the upgrade did not stop unintentional discharges. States, industries and immunity 'It's not a great look' when a manufacturer can carve out a statutory exemption for itself, but it's also not unusual, said Daniel Pi, an assistant professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill in 2023 following a deadly school shooting that gives gun and ammunition dealers, manufacturers and sellers additional protections against lawsuits. This year, Tennessee lawmakers passed another bill to further limit liability for gun companies. In a different industry — pesticides — governors in North Dakota and Georgia signed laws this year providing legal protections to Bayer, the maker of Roundup, a popular weed killer. Bayer has been hit with 181,000 claims alleging that the key ingredient in Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer disputes those claims. The Louisiana Legislature passed a bill that would protect nursing homes from most lawsuits and cap damages. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry hasn't acted on it yet.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian knocks pieces out of Trump's megabill
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that several key pieces of the massive bill to implement President Trump's agenda run afoul of the Byrd Rule and must be taken out of the package to allow it to pass with a simple majority vote on a special procedural fast-track. The parliamentarian ruled against several provisions under the jurisdictions of the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services Committees. These included a provision that would have placed a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which would have cut $6.4 billion from the agency by reducing its maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve's operating expenses. The creation of the CFPB was one of the central reforms of the Dodd-Frank Act that Democrats passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She also ruled against language cutting $1.4 billion in costs by reducing the pay of Federal Reserve staff, cutting $293 million by reducing the Office of Financial Research funding and cutting $771 million by eliminating the Public Company Accounting Oversight board. Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, touted the parliamentary rulings. 'The Senate Parliamentarian advised that certain provisions in the Republicans' One Big, Beautiful Betrayal will be subject to the Byrd Rule – ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill to ensure it complies with the rules of reconciliation,' Merkley said. 'As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their families lose and billionaires win agenda, there are rules that must be followed and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,' he added. Senate Republicans will need to remove the provisions from the bill or otherwise would have to muster 60 voters to overcome a point of order against the bill. Senate Republicans hold a 53-47 seat majority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) could opt to override the parliamentarian's ruling with a simple majority vote on the floor establishing a new Senate precedent, but he has indicated he does not plan to do that. The parliamentarian ruled that several sections of the bill under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee also violated the Byrd Rule. She ruled against the repeal of funding authorizations in the Inflation Reduction Act and the repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency's multipollutant emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and later. She also ruled against a provision under the Armed Services panel's jurisdiction that would reduce appropriations to the Department of Defense if spending plans are not submitted on time.
Chicago Tribune
35 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
