Every so often, usually in a hallway conversation, occasionally in a boardroom, and sometimes in a frustrated aside, I hear a version of this, “SACSCOC staff already know what the decision will be. The committee is just there to make it official.” If you’ve heard that, you’re not alone. As with many persistent accreditation narratives, this one is far more lore than law. Let’s unpack it.

Where This Lore Comes From

Accreditation is complex. SACSCOC staff members are deeply knowledgeable and are very focused on support. We work year-round with institutions. We train evaluators. We answer questions. We review submissions for completeness. So, from the outside, it can appear that staff are the steady hand behind the curtain, that decisions are quietly shaped long before a committee convenes or a Board vote is taken. Add to that the fact that staff often brief committees on process and policy, and it can reinforce the misconception that the “real” decisions are made somewhere else. But that is not how SACSCOC works.

What the Law (and Our Governance Structure) Actually Says

SACSCOC is a peer-driven, Board-governed accreditor. That is not a slogan. It is our structure. Here’s who makes accreditation decisions:

• Peer Evaluators: presidents, provosts, faculty, financial officers, and other institutional leaders review evidence, ask questions, deliberate, and make recommendations.
• Review Committees, including Off-Site and 5^th Year Committees, make preliminary evaluations of compliance, and develop findings based on the Principles of Accreditation and their own professional experience and judgement.
• The SACSCOC Board of Trustees makes final accreditation decisions.

What exactly then does SACSCOC do or not do?

First, let’s talk about what they do NOT do. Staff do not vote. Staff do not override committees or try to sway them either way. Staff do not sit in a back room and determine outcomes.

Second, let’s talk about what they DO. The staff of SACSCOC’s role can be summed up simply. Our role is to:

• Walk with our institutions as a partner.
• Support the consistent application of policies.
• Provide historical and regulatory context.
• Protect due process.
• Support committees in doing their work effectively and fairly.

So, at the end of the day, SACSCOC staff invests in the success of the institutions and in the quality and integrity of the peer review process. But the judgments about compliance? Those are made by peers and affirmed by the Board.

Law vs. Lore

❌ Lore: SACSCOC VPs and staff are the real decision-makers.

✅ Law: Peer evaluators make recommendations; the Board makes decisions. Staff ensure fairness, consistency, and compliance with policy.

❌ Lore: Committees are symbolic, staff have already decided.

✅ Law: Committees deliberate independently, and their professional judgment drives recommendations forward to the Board.

Why This Structure Matters

This is not accidental. Peer review is foundational to accreditation because:

• Institutions deserve to be evaluated by professionals who understand the work.
• Academic judgment belongs to the academy.
• Quality assurance must be grounded in institutional expertise, not bureaucratic fiat.

If staff were the shadow decision-makers, we would lose legitimacy overnight. And frankly, we don’t want that role.

The Pruitt Perspective

Let me be candid. Staff have experience. We’ve seen hundreds of cases. We understand federal regulations and our own policies deeply. So yes, we may sometimes anticipate where issues could arise. But anticipating is not deciding. One key role of our staff is to work alongside of our institutions from Day 1. I realize this is different than other accreditors and I realize the appearance could be that we are influencing the process. Fact is, we are not. Fact is, we feel that we can be a partner to our institutions by providing that level of support. Our VPs go on all site visits, they do read the submissions, but not to find fault or affect the process. They do it to give institutions feedback and guidance.

I have sat in enough committee rooms to know that peer evaluators ask hard questions, wrestle with nuance, and sometimes surprise everyone, including staff with the depth of their analysis. That is healthy. That is how it should work.

We are a compliance organization governed by a Board, but we are also a community of professionals committed to institutional quality. Under our Students First, Always philosophy, trust and transparency are essential. I did not come to SACSCOC to just manage compliance, I came here, as did my colleagues, to make a difference and to add to the overall knowledge base of higher education.

Trust requires clarity about who holds authority. The authority to make accreditation decisions rests with two important groups. 1) Peer evaluators through their recommendations and 2) The SACSCOC Board through its votes.

Staff serve the process. We do not control it. If anything, our job is to protect the integrity of peer judgment, not replace it.

So, the next time someone says, “Staff are really the ones making the decisions.” You can gently respond, that’s lore. Peer review still matters.