02.01.20 Guidelines for Consortia Relationships and Contractual Agreements

The process for developing linkages with other institutions and external agencies including questions for consideration is set forth in the attached “Guidelines for Consortia Relationships and Contractual Agreements”. Elements for the proposed agreement and for review and evaluation of consortia relationships and contractual agreements are delineated in the attached set of guidelines that are intended to provide broad parameters for various types of institutional linkages, without being unduly prescriptive for those agreements. In addition, proposals for institutional partnerships with external agencies must include the Memorandum of Understanding Checklist with appropriate signatures.

Proposals

Proposals for linkages with other institutions and agencies may originate in a number of ways. In some instances, the linkage institution has already been identified by an individual or disciplinary or world regional group; in other instances an individual or group seeks to identify an appropriate institution in a given country. Proposals for partnerships with other institutions should provide answers to the following questions.

1. In what ways does a relationship with the institution support the stated mission, goals and specific needs of UAH and the other institution?
2. What are the estimated annual costs to UAH and the other institution for maintaining the relationship?
3. What is the level of commitment and interest among UAH administrative officers and faculty members to the relationship? Among administrative officers and faculty members of the other institution?
4. Does the institution have official recognition or accreditation? What is the source of information on its accreditation status?
5. How does the profile of the institution compare to that of UAH in size, programs, quality, location (urban, rural), faculty, academic calendar, library facilities, laboratories, student advising, and administrative infrastructure for maintaining a relationship?
6. Does the institution meet the U.S. national security requirements regarding associations with foreign countries?

The individual or chair of a group seeking a relationship with an institution submits a written proposal to the college dean or unit supervisor that includes (a) a review of communication that has already been undertaken with regard to the institution, (b) a Memorandum of Understanding Checklist. With approval by the college dean or unit supervisor, the proposal and checklist are submitted for review and approval through the regular supervisory channel.

On-Site Visit and Further Investigation (if Applicable)

If an on-site visit is appropriate, information should be gathered during, before, or after the visit that will allow the following tasks to be accomplished.

1. Establishment of mutual program goals that are clear and specific enough to be reviewed and evaluated.
2. Development of plans for the implementation of program goals to include agreement upon all applicable items as follows:
   1. the minimum/maximum number of students to be involved in the program initially, annually, or for a specific time thereafter.
   2. faculty salaries and benefits, housing, transportation, provision for replacement of faculty members who will be abroad, and any change in faculty status resulting from overseas assignment.
   3. students’ tuition, housing, board, stipend, provision for intercession housing, and cultural opportunities.
   4. payment and foreign exchange provisions for all currency involvement.
   5. possibilities for “in kind” support as well as direct financial provisions.
   6. academic considerations such as participating departments (divisions, faculties), programs, faculty members, and new or additional courses needed at each institution to accommodate the linkage.
   7. status of a student’s participation in an overseas program in relation to degree requirements at the home institution.
   8. level of language proficiency needed for participation in the program and means of evaluating that proficiency at each institution.
   9. plans for orientation (adequate briefing with regard to customs and practices in the foreign country) and debriefing of visiting faculty and students.
   10. plan for regular mutual review and evaluation of the program. k. provisions for mutual termination of the agreement.
3. Financial parameters should be established and held to throughout the process.

Draft Agreement

After the above considerations are addressed, an agreement can be formulated with the necessary background materials and presented to the appropriate administrative leaders. The following items, as applicable, will be included in either an agreement or as a letter of understanding to accompany a more general agreement:

1. A statement of mutual goals.
2. The name of the contact person or division responsible for the administration of the program at each institution.
3. Expected participation (students, faculty, and occasional individuals for special projects).
4. Financial responsibilities of each institution with regard to travel, salary, housing, board, tuition, stipends, and teaching and research materials (laboratory supplies, books, library facilities, etc.)
5. Provisions for changing the scope of the program.
6. Provisions for periodic review or evaluation.
7. A release clause with a specified time period between notices and withdrawal from the program.
8. Effective date and duration for the probationary period.

The college dean/unit supervisor will share the recommendations with the provost/vice president who then recommends the proposal to the president for signature. An agreement will be drawn up based on advice and input from the office of legal affairs, as a formal document, in both English and the language of the other institution, if applicable. With the establishment of the linkage, a budget is also established for supporting the agreement.

Announcement

When a consortial relationship or contractual agreement is signed by both presidents and/or chief academic officers, the linkage should be announced with broad dissemination of information about its purposes and the opportunities it provides for UAH faculty and students.

Evaluation/Review

A comprehensive evaluation of existing consortial relationships and contractual agreements should be included in conjunction with the regular cycle for academic program reviews or a three-member ad-hoc committee appointed by the provost or vice president, as appropriate. In conducting this evaluation, the program review team or ad-hoc committee will meet with appropriate advisory committees and will consider the following types of information:

1. Date, initiators, purpose, and terms of relationship (copy of agreement).
2. Review of activity under terms of the agreement, including numbers of individuals involved (administrators, faculty members, students) from each institution by year and by type of activity (research, teaching, service).
3. Evaluation forms and reports from students, faculty and administrators involved in the consortial relationship or contractual agreement.
4. Annual cost to the UAH as well as to the other institution, if possible to determine (ex. travel support, publication costs, per diem, etc.). The estimate would also include estimated costs for communication by fax, phone, letter, or time of UAH staff.
5. The program review team or ad-hoc committee makes a recommendation to continue, modify, or discontinue linkage based upon recommendations from advisory committees as appropriate and an assessment of clearly articulated rationale consistent with needs, mission, costs, and benefits to institution. Balance and reciprocity are generally expected unless the agreement clearly states otherwise.