Focused Report
CS 3.2.8
1
*CS 3.2.8 The institution has qualified administrative and academic officers with the
experience, competence, and capacity to lead the institution. (Qualified
administrative/academic officers)
Off-Site Review Team Comments
The Compliance Report asserts that the institution has qualified administrative and
academic officers with the experience, competence, and capacity to lead the
institution. In support of its assertion the institution provided documentation of State
of South Carolina Office of Human Resources procedures, outlined policies and
procedures for the recruitment and selection of administrators, and described the
annual faculty review and evaluation of the president, provost, deans, and
department chairs as specified in the Faculty Handbook. However, because the
institution provided no corroborating evidence such as resumes, job descriptions
and transcripts, the Committee could not determine compliance. The On-Site
Committee should look for evidence of the same.
University Response
All administrative and academic officers of the University are evaluated annually in
compliance with the procedures of the State of South Carolina Office of Human
Resources (OHR), a unit of the SC Budget and Control Board. Administrative officers,
with the exception of the Chief Information Officer, are evaluated by the President using
the Employee Performance Management System (EPMS) form. The CIO is evaluated
with the EPMS form by the Vice President for Administration. Academic chairs and
deans submit an Annual Report and are evaluated by the Provost.
Each year, an audit team contracted by the state of South Carolina conducts a financial
audit of the University. As a part of that audit, the team selects a sample of personnel
files and reviews annual evaluations. Any irregularities in the evaluation process would
be noted by the audit team. As can be seen in Insert 1, the President’s folder was one
of the nine faculty or staff personnel folders which was reviewed in June 2007.
The EPMS form is an evaluation document which consists of three sections: (1)
Planning Stage Acknowledgement for the next year; (2) Position Description--a list of the
major functions for the position weighted in terms of the percentage of total time devoted
to them. The administrative officer is rated on a scale of 1 to 4 for the performance of
each function during the year of the evaluation; and (3) Evaluation Stage
Acknowledgement which indicates that the rater and the employee have discussed the
evaluation. The Planning Stage Acknowledgement and the Evaluation Stage
Acknowledgements for the 2006-2007 evaluations of all administrative officers are
included in Insert 2. The position description and vita/resume´ for each administrative
officer and the CIO are in Insert 3.
The President has given permission for his evaluation, administrated by the SC Agency
Head Commission and conducted by the FMU Board of Trustees, to be reviewed. The
evaluations of other administrative and academic officers may be reviewed with the
consent of the officer. The On-Site Committee should inform the SACS liaison of any
evaluations which they would like to review, and she will request the consent of the
officer.
Focused Report
CS 3.2.8
CS 3.2.8
Insert 1

List of Nine Faculty or Staff Whose Files Were Evaluated by Auditors from
Cline, Brandt, Kochenower & Co, P.A.during the 2006-07 Financial Audit

Copy of e-mail from M. Augustus McDill, Assistant Vice President for Accounting
2