A discussion of topics including conflict of interest, confidentiality and appropriate behavior to assure that the site team members understand and represent the values of the accreditation agency.

Questions to ask your accreditation agency:

• What are the agency's guidelines for ethical conduct?
• When should team members dispose of documents and how?
• What constitutes a real or perceived conflict of interest?
• Who has the ability to reject site team members because of conflicts of interest?
• Which expenses are reimbursed by the agency?
• What, if any, gifts may team members accept from a program or institution being reviewed?
• Are team members paid for their participation?

The strength and credibility of accreditation rests on fairness, ethical conduct and impartiality. As long as a program or institution meets an agency's standards, the agency must accredit it. Site team evaluators are highly visible members of the accreditation process, consequently they must not only behave in an impartial and ethical manner, they must also avoid situations that could give the appearance of improper conduct. For example, team members should keep expenses to a minimum and not use an evaluation visit as an opportunity to search for jobs or recruit faculty or students. Furthermore, no team member should ever use the accreditation process for personal gain or to advance the agendas or economic interests of others. Being aware of issues of confidentiality, impartiality and conflict of interest will help you to maintain the values of your accreditation agency:

• Confidentiality: Team members always learn from site visits and often take back useful ideas to improve their own organizations. However, discretion should be used to keep information resulting from the accreditation visit confidential. This would include contents of documents from the institution, events during meetings and tours, deliberations of the team, information contained in team reports and anticipated accreditation actions. Evaluation team reports, in particular, are the property of the university or college and no information may be released to third parties without the approval of the university president or designate. In general, documents related to the visit should never be left unattended where unauthorized individuals might gain access to them. Unless directed otherwise by your accreditation agency, all documents should either be returned to the accreditation agency, returned to the individual(s) responsible for the self-study at the program or institution, or destroyed when the team's work is finished. After a visit has ended, requests for clarification or interpretation of the evaluation team report should be referred to the accreditation agency and not answered by an individual team member.

• Impartiality: When a university or program is being accredited, all aspects of the process must be fair and objective no matter what you believe about the institution or about the context in which it operates. Because team members come from a variety of backgrounds, it is tempting to compare the program or institution under review to others. During discussions or when making recommendations, team members should refrain from drawing comparisons with other programs or universities and should evaluate and discuss the school within its own context from the framework of the standards. Your agency's standards provide the basis for all evaluations and decisions. Any information or events without relevance to a standard should not be considered.

• Conflict of interest: Team members are in a position of trust that requires them to exercise judgment on behalf of the public and the institution or program. Any other interest or obligations that might interfere with the judgment of team members must be avoided or openly declared. Team members should also be careful to avoid the appearance of a conflict and should declare any past, present or potential situations to the accreditation agency that could positively or negatively influence decisions. These would include:
  • Being a graduate, employee or consultant of the institution
  • Having immediate relatives or close working colleagues at the institution
  • Having an inability to set aside positive or negative biases about an institution
  • Being in a situation where one can financially or professionally gain as a result of specific accreditation decisions
  • Being in a situation to put an institution at a disadvantage for the purpose of benefiting competitors
  • Restricting the number of graduates solely to change local or national economic outcomes

  The accreditation agency or representatives of the institution or program under review may choose to screen out individuals from the site visit who have a real or perceived conflict of interest.

No discussion on the ethics of being a site team member would be complete without mentioning hospitality expenses and payment for services. Expenses incurred while a team conducts the business of the accreditation agency may be reimbursed if they address a genuine need in the service of the agency and are

• appropriate to the occasion,
• reasonable in amount,
• allowable by agency policy, and
• verifiable.

In some cases, programs or institutions may provide gifts or transportation, offer to directly pay for meals, or reimburse team members for expenses during the site visit. Agencies differ on whether gifts of a certain value, favors, or direct reimbursements from the program or institution are acceptable. Agencies also differ on whether or not they pay evaluators an honorarium in addition to, or in place of, stipends or reimbursements for expenses. Be sure to consult with your accreditation agency regarding its policies and procedures for ethical behavior, appropriate conduct and reimbursement and payment prior to an on-site evaluation.