ALA President Molly Raphael informed the Association’s governing Council March 28 about a change in the leadership of the Committee on Accreditation (COA) beginning immediately through Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, in June. She wrote:
As you know, Dr. Ken Haycock has been chair of COA since July, after completing the first two years of the four-year term as a COA member. Dr. Haycock has been doing an excellent job of leading COA in spearheading a strategic planning process, encouraging openness and dialogue, and balancing the demands of the profession and the academy. Recently, he was offered an exciting and challenging new position [to lead the development of the University of Southern California’s new graduate degree in library and information management program in Los Angeles]. While I, in consultation with President-elect Maureen Sullivan, Executive Director Keith Fiels, and Senior Associate Executive Director Mary Ghikas, have made it clear to Dr. Haycock that his new position does not compromise his role as COA chair in any way (legally, ethically, or by conflict of interest), he has determined that any perception of undue influence in this case would not serve COA or ALA. Therefore, he requested that he be allowed to step aside. It is with great appreciation for his excellent leadership and understanding of his desire to make certain there is no perception of a conflict of interest, that I have reluctantly accepted his resignation. I hope his efforts to encourage more openness and transparency within COA’s work, where appropriate, will be continued.
I have invited Brian L. Andrew to serve as chair for the remainder of the term (through Annual Conference 2012), and I am very pleased that he has accepted this invitation. Mr. Andrew is in his third year on COA and is well versed in its work. He is an attorney and a public member of COA. He has served on other accrediting bodies, and I am confident that he will be able to continue moving COA forward in its important work. For those of you who may be curious, he is not the first lay person to serve as chair of COA.
Again, I am deeply appreciative of the important work that Ken Haycock has done in leading COA this year, and grateful to Brian Andrew for being willing to step up. I am confident that the important work of COA will continue to move forward.
Meanwhile in an April 2 message forwarded to Council, COA member Dan O’Connor submitted his resignation, writing:
ALA’s policies governing codes of ethics and COA membership practices are weak and uncertain, and have been so for a number of years. My resignation is a result of the inability of ALA’s leadership to provide for a transparent and coherent set of ethical policy guidelines. One other member of COA has already resigned for similar reasons that I am submitting this resignation.
Recently, seven of the 12 members of COA were actively concerned over such a policy issue and communicated their concerns in writing to ALA’s leadership. A month and a half went by and ALA leadership then reported to me that the situation under review was not explicitly mentioned in policy documents. Eventually, a decision was reached on this matter but without reference to a permanent policy solution should similar events occur in the future.
The key issue here involves continued membership on COA when a member changes positions or accepts a consulting assignment that could relate to prospective COA decisions. In the distant past, this problem even extended to directors of the Office of Accreditation who had accepted positions with programs who had received conditional accreditation. Currently if a COA member is deciding on the accreditation status of an MLIS program, and if that person has a connection to the program, then the individual is expected to self-identify and to recuse from any discussion or decision relating to that program’s accreditation. Although this practice works well, it does not address the issue focused on here.
When a COA member is offered a faculty, director, dean, or consulting position in a program struggling with its accreditation status, then a reasonable person might infer that using a person on COA would facilitate that program’s achieving full accreditation. This is, to me, a conflict of interest. It is further compounded when the standards for accreditation are under review since a reasonable person could perceive that the standards review could be influenced to advantage that particular program. At issue here is what is expected of the COA member to ensure that the integrity of ALA’s accreditation process is protected and that there is no appearance of a conflict of interest.
Our MLIS programs and their respective universities value ALA accreditation—as do ALA members. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which recognizes COA as an accrediting body, is moving toward greater transparency in the accreditation process which will put a spotlight on MLIS programs to increase their public accountability. It is only proper, then, that ALA makes sure that COA upholds the highest ethical and transparent standards. I cannot continue on a committee where our Association does not formally address the conditions under which a conflict of interest might be perceived and how that might be resolved.
These issues do not infringe on the confidentiality provisions under which COA operates. Instead, they address ALA policy and procedural issues. I was encouraged when you shared recent changes in COA with Council members and I am copying them with this message in the hope that they can provide recommendations and resolutions to address such policy matters.
It is my hope that the issues identified here can be fully aired and eventually resolved.
Asked by American Libraries for a response to O’Connor, Raphael said April 3:
ALA’s leadership takes very seriously issues raised in Dan O’Connor’s letter. The integrity of the work of the Committee on Accreditation is very important to ALA and the future of our profession. We will continue to work with new COA Chair Brian Andrew, the COA members, and Accreditation Office Director Karen O’Brien. The concerns raised were only brought to my attention two weeks ago, though they may have been under discussion by COA members earlier. We believe that the efforts already underway to make COA’s work more transparent should continue. Transparency is not only a value of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation but also of the American Library Association.
