↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
MEMORANDUM
To: Art Zucker
From: Toni A. Murdock
Re: Accreditation Conversations
Date: May 7,2008
At the request of Reuben Harris who had concerns about the impact of any decision to
reconstitute the Board of Trustees of the University on accreditation, I have had
conversations with representatives of both NCA and OBR as follows:
NCA-5/1/08 with Karen Solomon
Any substantial change in governance and by-laws and any change in control of the
Board will result in an accreditation review process by NCA. After explaining the
situation with agreement of a changed board with 8-8-4, I asked what the process and
actions ofNCA would be.
NCA will want to see the following:
1. Organizational structure and by-laws
2. University and College budgets
3. College academic plan
4. Memorandum of agreement between BOT and ACCC
5. Financial picture-what will happen if this new Board can’t stabilize the College?
If this review raises concerns about College operations and the ability of the University to
financially support its academic plan, it could be placed on probation or given notice of
deficiencies. Ultimately, failure to correct the cited problems could result in loss of
accreditation.
If the College stays open and it intends to begin recruitment, even of its current students,
NCA wants to know what is being said to them. They want to see the recruiting literature
and messages.
If the College is intending to separate after one or two years, N CA will want to know the
specifics about what will happen afterwards to both the College and the University. They
will want to have assurances that both operations will be viable in the future and
fmancially able to support the academic program offered. That analysis will need to be
presented to them early. NCA has gone through the separation issue with another
institution, and it was an 18 month process. They have to be assured that there are two
separate institutions and they would have to schedule a visit to verify that issue. NCA
stated again that the College would have to go through a separate accreditation at the time
of the separation.
OBR–4/30/ with Jane Fullerton
If the College remains open, OBR stated that they would want to look at the financial
resources, academic plan, and the student support structure. Since the University
determined it could not continue the College-they would want to know what has
changed and what the plan looks likes.
They would need to do a review and that couldn’t be done until this summer because they
are so back logged. But this wouldn’t prevent the College from going forward since it is
authorized under the University.
OBR would want to know the changes in the Board’s by-laws. At one level they want to
know the how the Board is serving the University as a whole and the College at another
level. Does the Board represent the University?
OBR stated that this was a world of uncharted territory but that they would work with the
University in any way they can.
OBR stated that we should check with the Attorney General’s charitable contribution
office. The issue of people buying seats on the board brings up the question as to
whether the organization continues to operate as a non-profit organization. OBR is
running into this issue with the Myers University case.
My conversations led me to believe that NCA will be much more rigid than OBR.
