Complaints and Unsolicited Information Against The Commission, Its Candidate or Accredited Institutions

The Commission on Colleges and Universities recognizes the value of information from students, employees, and public sources in determining whether an institution’s performance is consistent with The Commission standards. The Commission is also committed to the consistent, fair, and timely consideration of information that may raise significant compliance concerns, while protecting procedural fairness for institutions and individuals and ensuring that member institutions maintain and apply appropriate grievance procedures.

This policy establishes procedures for (1) formal complaints submitted to The Commission about accredited institutions or The Commission (including staff or Board members) and (2) unsolicited accreditation-related information received outside normal cyclical reviews. This enables The Commission to address possible non-compliance with its Principles of Accreditation and policies, as well as possible violations of an institution’s own policies and procedures as they relate to the Principles.

Formal complaint: A written submission by a complainant using The Commission Complaint Form (electronic or mailed) that (1) unless submitted anonymously, is signed (electronically or traditionally) by the person submitting the complaint (complainant), (2) is supported by documentation of stated allegations, and (3) identifies at least one standard of the Principles of Accreditation alleged to be violated. The Complaint Form also requires a complainant to provide a description of actions taken at the institution, including exhaustion of institutional grievance procedures, with a copy of the institution’s response; full disclosure of other external channels (e.g., legal action) the complainant is pursuing; and acknowledgment that The Commission may share the complaint and supporting documents with the institution.

Unsolicited information: A form of complaint in which accreditation-related information is revealed about an institution, typically outside normal cyclical review, that appears to raise significant compliance concerns.

The Commission will not accept: - Complaints that are not in writing - Complaints forwarded without use of the form - Complaints submitted by fax only - Complaints filed on behalf of another without appropriate authorization - Voice recordings as evidence (unless transcribed, attested to, and notarized)

If a complainant has a demonstrated disability that prevents submission of a formal complaint in accord with the guidelines above, he or she should contact The Commission for assistance.

Each institution is required to have in place student complaint policies and procedures that are reasonable, fairly administered, and well publicized. The Commission also requires, in accord with federal regulations, that each institution maintains a record of complaints received by the institution. This record is made available to The Commission upon request. This record will be reviewed and evaluated by The Commission as part of the institution’s comprehensive decennial evaluation.

In reviewing a formal complaint, the following considerations apply: - The Commission’s processes are intended to identify and address significant non-compliance with accreditation standards and to ensure institutions maintain appropriate grievance procedures and procedural fairness. - The Commission will not act as a grievance or adjudicatory panel to obtain redress for individual complainants, nor intervene in routine institutional matters unless they implicate accreditation standards. - The Commission will not act on complaints or information that include defamatory or threatening statements. - When submitted anonymously or by a confidential reporter, the complainant must redact personal information and indicate on the form that it is a confidential complaint. - Confidential markings by complainants may limit The Commission’s ability to review allegations fully. - The Commission cannot guarantee anonymity when pursuing resolution of a complaint if the identity of a complainant can be inferred by other means. - Where possible, complainants should exhaust the institution’s published grievance procedures before filing with The Commission.

A complaint may be submitted anonymously; however, the submission must meet the definition of a formal complaint as noted above.

Initial steps & timeline > - Submit a complaint (formal written). > - Confirmation: Complainant receives electronic confirmation upon receipt. > - Acknowledgment: The Commission will acknowledge the complaint within 21 calendar days of receipt. Supplemental materials may be submitted by a complainant within 21 days of the electronic confirmation or receipt of a complaint.

Staff review (within 60 calendar days of acknowledgment) The Commission staff will determine: > - Whether the complaint is within The Commission scope and accreditation-related > - Whether documentation is adequate > - Whether the complaint raises significant questions about compliance

Possible dispositions after review > - The complaint will not be processed further because it is not within the scope of The Commission policies and jurisdiction or there is inadequate documentation to raise questions concerning the institution’s compliance with The Commission standards. The decision of the President of The Commission is final. > - The complaint will proceed to further review if determined by staff to be of sufficient substance. In this case, The Commission will make every effort to expedite the review; however, the time required to conduct the review may vary considerably depending on the circumstances and nature of the complaint.

A copy of the complaint will be forwarded to the institution’s chief executive officer, who will be asked to respond to The Commission within 30 calendar days. After review, outcomes include: - The complaint will not be processed further because there is insufficient evidence of the institution’s non-compliance with The Commission standards. The decision of the President of The Commission is final. - The complaint will proceed if evidence of significant non-compliance is determined or unresolved questions remain. The President may take one of the following actions: - (a) Authorize a Special Committee visit: committee examines records/interviews, issues a report to the Board and relevant standing committee for action at the next Board meeting. - (b) Forward the case directly to the Board of Trustees and relevant standing committee for action at the next Board meeting. - (c) Include the complaint in an upcoming scheduled institutional visit; the committee incorporates findings into its report and forwards to the Board for action per published timelines. - (d) Request additional information, then decide among the above actions.

For actions (a), (b), or (c) the Board of Trustees’ decision is final unless appealable under The Commission Appeals Procedures of the College Delegate Assembly.

Other considerations > - The Commission normally considers complaints whose circumstances occurred within two years of filing or two years of completion of the institution’s internal complaint process. > - If a The Commission staff transition occurs during disposition, the complainant will be notified of the new staff contact and a modified schedule if applicable. > - Complaints are retained until the institution completes its next two comprehensive reviews. New complaints during that period may prompt renewed consideration of a previous submission.

Initial steps and timeline > - Unsolicited information is received by The Commission staff. > - Confirmation: If the submitter is known, electronic confirmation is sent upon receipt. If submitted anonymously, confirmation will not be sent. > - Acknowledgment: The Commission will acknowledge a known submitter within 21 calendar days of receipt. Supplemental materials may be submitted within 21 days of the electronic confirmation or receipt of unsolicited information.

The following circumstances warrant The Commission review of unsolicited information, each with its own process:

1. Information revealed during off-site or on-site committee reviews. Following submission of a committee report, the institution will be given adequate time to respond before any action is taken by The Commission Board of Trustees. The decision of the Board is final.
2. Information received between periods of scheduled review indicating potential non-compliance. Following staff review and the institution’s response, if the information is of factual substance and accreditation-related, it is forwarded to the Committees on Compliance and Reports for formal review, or the President may authorize a Special Committee. The decision is final.
3. Information revealed by an institution during its meeting on the record with a Committee on Compliance and Reports. (See Administrative Procedures for the Meetings of the Committees on Compliance and Reports.)
4. Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding an institution’s Title IV compliance responsibilities (e.g., student loan default rates, financial or compliance audit results, program reviews). Following review and the institution’s response, The Commission staff may close the case or forward it to a Committee on Compliance and Reports or a Special Committee. The decision is final.
5. Information received from U.S. Department of Education–recognized agencies regarding adverse action or probation on a The Commission candidate or member institution. Institutions are also required to disclose this information to The Commission. (See Accrediting Decisions of Other Agencies.)

An individual may make an inquiry regarding complaint procedures or about issues and concerns that could be considered complaints via The Commission’s designated channels (email or phone); however, these interactions are classified as “inquiries” only. The Commission’s official obligations and specific response timetables begin only after a formal complaint or unsolicited information is received.

Complaints against a The Commission Trustee, representative (i.e., peer evaluator), or staff member must be directed to the President of The Commission. Examples might include evidence that a staff member failed to follow The Commission policy, evidence of an on-site committee member exhibiting bias against an institution, or evidence that a staff member or committee member has a conflict of interest in working with an institutional case.

Initial steps and timeline > - Submit a written complaint to the President of The Commission, describing the allegation with supporting documentation. Contact information for the President is published on The Commission website. > - The President will acknowledge the complaint within 21 calendar days of receipt. > - Investigation & response: The President reviews and informs the complainant of action within 60 calendar days of acknowledgment. In instances where additional time is required, the President will inform the complainant.

A complaint against The Commission President must be directed to the Chair of the Board of Trustees to protect the confidentiality of the complainant. A complaint based solely on disappointment with a The Commission action (i.e., an action not matching expectations) is not, by itself, grounds for review.

Initial steps and timeline > - Submit a written complaint to the Chair of The Commission Board of Trustees, describing the allegation with supporting documentation. Contact information for the current Board Chair is published on The Commission website. > - The Board Chair will acknowledge the complaint within 21 calendar days of receipt. The Board Chair will also designate a committee of the Executive Council to investigate and recommend action to the Board Chair. The investigation may include review with the President and the complainant. > - In instances where additional time is required to conduct the review, the President will inform the complainant. > - The Board Chair reviews the Executive Council’s recommendation and informs the complainant and The Commission President of action within 60 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. In instances where additional time is required, the Board Chair will inform the complainant. The decision of the Board Chair is final. > - If a complaint concerns the Chair of the Board, the Vice-Chair assumes the Chair’s role for the above process and timeline.

Third-party comments are submitted by the public at the time of an institution’s formal, scheduled review (initial accreditation or reaffirmation) for the purpose of informing The Commission regarding the institution’s ongoing commitment to compliance with The Commission standards and policies. Therefore, if an individual wishes to address an institution’s compliance with the Principles of Accreditation at the time of the institution’s formal committee review, he/she should use the policy Third-Party Comment by the Public.