To: 2024 Nego�ated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Ins�tu�onal Quality Commitee

From: Carolyn Fast and Barmak Nassirian

Date: January 18, 2024

Re: Accredita�on Regula�ons

There was much discussion last week at the table about the Department's proposed changes to the 

defini�on of "Representa�ve of the Public" in 602.3, which we certainly support. While the 

Department's proposed dra� thoroughly addresses the proper atributes of the public members of 

accreditors' decision-making bodies, it fails to ar�culate any safeguards about poten�al disqualifiers for 

other members of such decision-making bodies beyond the generic requirement in 602.15(a)(6) that 

agencies should have policies to prevent or resolve conflicts of interests.

We write to propose that, at the very least, individuals barred from employment and contrac�ng with 

Title IV par�cipa�ng ins�tu�ons under final regula�ons in subsec�ons 668.14(b)(18)(i) and (ii) and 

668.16(k)—scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024—be also barred from employment, contrac�ng, 

and all volunteer ac�vity (most obviously, as decision-makers) with accredi�ng bodies that are or seek be 

to recognized by the Secretary. If certain individuals’ prior conduct disqualifies them from direct 

involvement with par�cipa�ng schools and their contractors, we would surely not want them to be 

involved in federally recognized quality assurance efforts either. We would welcome addi�onal thoughts 

on other poten�al required qualifica�ons or disqualifiers for service on decision-making bodies of 

recognized accreditors.

In addi�on, we propose that the Department finally regulate HEA 496(b)(4), which requires that 

accredi�ng agency budgets to be developed “without review or resort to consulta�on with any other 

en��es” to explicitly bar owners, execu�ves, and fiduciaries of ins�tu�ons that are or seek to be 

accredited from serving on the boards of any recognized accreditor and any accreditor seeking 

recogni�on. By virtue of their respec�ve posi�ons with accredited en��es, such individuals represent 

said en��es, and their involvement with accreditors’ budget decisions is tantamount to the involvement 

of those en��es. 

As you are aware, the statutory language was explicitly incorporated into the text of the HEA as part of 

program integrity provisions of the 1992 Amendments. Sec�on 496(b)’s “Separate and Independent” 

provisions were intended to prevent ins�tu�ons from exer�ng control or undue influence on accredi�ng 

bodies. The language on accreditor budgets was explicitly intended to prevent ins�tu�ons from starving 

recognized accreditors of the resources they would realis�cally need to effec�vely enforce their 

standards and policies. Despite the black leter of the law, accreditors rou�nely include owners, 

execu�ves, and fiduciaries of ins�tu�ons on their boards, and thus allow them to par�cipate in the 

development and approval of their budgets. There is a clear conflict of interests inherent in any 

arrangement that enables regulated en��es to determine their regulators’ budgets. In this case we also 

have an affirma�ve statutory provision that prohibits the involvement of individuals who, by virtue of 

their specific roles, represent en��es of sufficient concern to Congress, which explicitly sought to protect 

recognized accreditors from their reach.