91原创

1. The revised Bylaws of The Board of Trustees (herein called Board) provide for a standing Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee (herein called Committee) in Article IV Section 2.
2. The Committee鈥檚 role is advisory to the Board in the areas set out in Article IV Section 2 of the Bylaws unless otherwise provided by the Board.
3. Purposes of the Committee
   1. To provide a mechanism through the Chancellor鈥檚 Office to assist the Board in its policy-making role by providing information and reasoned perspectives regarding academic and student spheres. This would include the following stated functions of the Board:
      1. Establish policies and goals of the System and direct the Chancellor to implement and achieve those policies and goals;
      2. Review and approve academic plans, including new programs and new units, as well as major modifications to existing programs and units;
      3. Upon recommendation of the Presidents, approve the earned degrees awarded.
   2. To support the Presidents and their academic affairs and student affairs officers in developing new programs and services, and to serve as advocates for each campus and for the System as a whole wherever and whenever appropriate.
   3. To assist the Chancellor in performing the following of his or her stated functions:
      1. Implement Board policies, continuously review the administration and effect of these policies, and recommend, for the Board鈥檚 consideration, modifications to existing policies and new policies at both the institution and System levels;
      2. Coordinate all functions of the System to ensure an integrated institution of related and cooperating campuses, with coordinated educational programs and services so that quality and comprehensiveness are emphasized, cooperation is ensured, and unnecessary duplication is avoided.
      3. Strengthen the quality of effort in those programs of teaching, research, and service for which there is the greatest need in the state. This should be accomplished through attraction of new resources, coordination of effort (if such will provide a better total program), through the normal budgetary process (including the development of appropriation requests), and a reallocation of resources if necessary.
4. Major Responsibilities of the Committee
   1. Review the quality/effectiveness of the institutions and their programs. This will be a central focus of the Committee鈥檚 work.
   2. Review information directly related to programmatic and administrative assessments, evidence/indicators of effectiveness, outcome measures determined by internal and external evaluations, matters of intercampus cooperation, and academic efficiency.
   3. Review financial and facilities plans that impact academic, student, research, and service programs.
   4. Review and recommend organizational structures for academic affairs and student affairs units including the creation or major modifications of colleges, schools, division, departments, centers, etc.
   5. Review and recommend the creation of chairs and professorships and appointments to them. (See BR 508-I-B)
   6. Periodically review institutional policies governing tenure and other faculty rights and responsibilities.
   7. Consider and recommend new programs of instruction, research, and service.
   8. Review matters that are developed by the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education (ACHE), the State Legislature, or other governmental bodies that affect System institutions.
   9. Review standards recommended by the institutions of the System (i.e. student admission to the institution and to programs, standards of academic progress, honors, graduation requirements, etc., and other student affairs that relate to academic matters).
   10. Review policies and practices of peer institutions and make recommendations regarding the standards used in the System鈥檚 institutions.
   11. Review and recommend student affairs plans, as appropriate. This also includes the periodic review with the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs the items of Committee responsibility covered in Board Rule 200.

(Adopted May 14, 1977; amended September 17, 1980, revised September 17, 1999; amended November 14, 2008.; amended April 6, 2018)

1. Policy Statements

   1. Primary responsibility for the planning and execution of academic programs begins with the faculty and staff of each System campus.
   2. The Board and the Chancellor encourage adaptation of resources to meet changing academic needs in the State.
   3. The institutions of The 91原创 System are required to submit requests for new programs to the Chancellor, with a copy to the System Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for review and approval. Upon the approval of the Chancellor, the new program request will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
   4. Efforts at collaboration and sharing, including cooperative, joint, and shared programs, should be explored at the campus and System levels whenever a new degree program of instruction is considered. Campuses are expected to address this when notifying the Board that a proposal is pending.
   5. Guidelines and procedures for the development, submission, review, and approval of new programs are developed and administered by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic Affairs.

2. The Guidelines for Establishing a New Degree Program

   With the elimination of the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education鈥檚 Notice of Intent to Submit a Proposal (NISP) process, 91原创 System campuses are expected to present a Notification of Pending Proposal (NPP) form to the System Office of Academic and Student Affairs at least one full month prior to the deadline for receiving Board items for the meeting agenda on which the campus will be requesting the new program proposal to appear. This will allow time to confirm that the need and/or demand for a new academic program has been properly assessed at the campus and System levels and ensure that an opportunity for review and feedback has been provided to other UAS campuses, and appropriate System administrators, before a full program proposal is presented to the Board of Trustees for initial approval.

   1. Pre-prososal Process
      1. The faculty completes the UAS Notification of Pending Proposal (NPP) form.
      2. Campus committees review the NPP.
      3. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs reviews the NPP.
      4. The NPP is reviewed and approved by the President and forwarded to the Chancellor, with a copy to the System Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, for review no later than one month prior to the deadline for Board materials for the meeting at which the proposal will be considered by the Board of Trustees.
      5. The System Office sends the completed NPP forms to the other System campuses for review and feedback.
      6. The NPP is adjusted, as necessary, and submitted by the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs to the Chancellor for review and feedback. If there are no further concerns, the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs will notify the campus that the proposal may be submitted to the Board portal for inclusion on the agenda and recommendation to the Board of Trustees for initial approval.

      It is expected that proposed degree programs that are submitted as part of the pre-proposal process are already listed on the campus鈥檚 Three-Year Academic Program Planning Report that is submitted annually to the Board. If the proposed program is not currently listed, an explanation is to be provided in the appropriate area on the NPP form.

   2. Program Proposal
      1. The faculty develops a full program proposal, which must be inclusive of the completion of: (1) The ACHE 鈥淧roposal for a New Degree Program鈥� form, which supports both undergraduate and graduate programs; (2) ACHE鈥檚 New Academic Degree Program Summary and Business Plan; and (3) The updated 91原创 System 鈥淣ew Academic Program Proposal Supplement鈥�.
      2. Campus committees review the proposal.
      3. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs reviews the proposal.
      4. The President approves the proposal and forwards it to the Chancellor for review.
      5. The Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs reviews the proposal, which could include a meeting with the provost, program administrator, and the lead faculty member(s).
      6. The System Office sends the proposal to the other System campuses for review and feedback.
      7. If substantive proposal modifications are necessary after System-wide review, the System Office of Academic and Student Affairs will work with the Provost鈥檚 Office of the proposing campus to discuss steps for addressing the concerns and/or to determine if more time is needed before the proposal is placed on the Board鈥檚 agenda. The campus provost will determine if any recommended modifications of the proposal require additional review and approval by the proposing department, faculty, etc. All new program proposals that appear on the Board鈥檚 agenda for consideration must be approved by the proposing campus鈥檚 President and recommended to the Chancellor for review and submission to the Board of Trustees as part of the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs committee agenda.
      8. During the meeting at which the proposal is to be formally considered, the campus provost will present the full proposal as an action item to the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee and the Board for initial approval and authorization to submit it to ACHE for approval by the Commission. In addition to the required UAS and ACHE proposal information, each proposal should be accompanied by a resolution for individual action and a copy of a letter of approval and support for the proposed program from the campus Provost to the President and from the President to the System Chancellor. A copy of the completed Notification of Pending Proposal (NPP) form should also be included as a supplemental document, along with the letters of support and any other relevant materials endorsing the program.
      9. Following the Board鈥檚 initial approval of the program, each campus submits the proposal to the ACHE web portal where it is subsequently locked by System personnel, signaling that it has been authorized for submission to ACHE by the Board . ACHE will notify the UA System Office of Academic & Student Affairs and/or the respective campus if there are questions or adjustments are needed.
      10. Upon ACHE approval, the proposal is presented to the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee and the Board of Trustees for its final review and approval. Following final Board approval, the campus then implements the program.
      11. If ACHE fails to approve the proposal, the Board may then choose to have the campus revise the proposal and resubmit it to ACHE, approve the proposal, or discontinue consideration of the proposal.

3. The Guidelines for Establishing a New For-Credit Non-Degree Certificate Program

   Certificate programs require Board action (and an appropriate resolution) if they are 30 or more undergraduate credit hours or 18 or more graduate credit hours in length. A certificate program with less than the above criteria should meet individual campus guidelines and be presented to the Board as an information item.

   1. The faculty develops a For-Credit Non-Degree Certificate program proposal.
   2. Campus committees review the proposal.
   3. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs reviews the proposal.
   4. The President approves the proposal and it, along with a completed ACHE 鈥淣on-Degree Certificate鈥� form, are forwarded to the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs for review.
   5. Depending on the number of credit hours and the level of the program as previously noted the Vice Chancelor for Academic and Student Affairs presents the For-Credit Non-Degree certificate program by 鈥渓ocking鈥� the item in the ACHE Web portal. (Campuses should consult ACHE policy for additional information regarding certificate levels and expectations for Commission review of For-Credit Non-Degree Certificates.)
   6. Following Board approval or presentation of the certificate program to the Board, the UAS Office of Academic and Student Affairs notifies ACHE of the Board鈥檚 approval of the For-Credit Non-Degree certificate program as an information item, of the Board鈥檚 approval or review of the certificate program by 鈥渓ocking鈥� the item in the ACHE Web portal. (Campuses should consult ACHE policy for additional information regarding certificate levels and expectations for Commission review of For-Credit Non- Degree Certificates.)

   Note:  UAS Campuses should obtain all required forms through the 91原创 System Office of Academic and Student Affairs and the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) website, as appropriate.

(Adopted October 15, 1986; Amended June 28, 1993; Revised November 1, 1996, May 7, 1999, April 21, 2000, February 15, 2002; Amended November 14, 2008, Amended February 2, 2024.)

1. Policy Statements

   1. The establishment of new academic, research, service, and administrative units, including but not limited to, departments, divisions, schools, colleges, centers, and institutes, must be submitted for review and approval to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.
   2. The institutions of The 91原创 System are required to submit requests for new academic, research, service, and administrative units to the Chancellor for review and approval. Upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, the new academic, research, service, and administrative units request will be submitted to The Board of Trustees for final approval.
   3. The institution must notify the Board, as an approval item, of any internal changes that are reasonable extensions or alterations of existing academic, research, service, and administrative units including organizational changes.

2. Guidelines for Establishing a New Center or Institute

   1. Definition. A center or institute focuses and concentrates efforts, usually multidisciplinary in nature, toward meeting a specialized need or dealing with a current issue. Most centers and institutes provide an umbrella organization for efforts directed toward a common goal. Some provide a central, visible focal point to enable individuals from the state and community to take advantage of the research and service opportunities of the University.
   2. Types of Centers or Institutes. A center or institute falls into one of the following two categories based on the primary purpose of its program:
      1. Instruction or research centers and institutes have, as a major focus, activities related to the instruction of students or the conduct of research.
      2. Service centers and institutes have a major focus on activities related to the dissemination of information or the provision of service to the community.
      3. The Board recognizes that the terms institute and center in particular are often used to identify locations within the UA System that do not primarily perform instruction, research, or external service functions (e.g. conference center, student health center, operations center). The creation of such units do not need to be approved by the Board. The campuses are encouraged to consult the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs regarding questions about the application of this Board Rule to a particular institute or center.
   3. Criteria. A proposed center or institute must meet the following three criteria and would be submitted to the President, to the Chancellor, and then to the Board of Trustees.
      1. Purpose. A clearly defined purpose directly related to the role and scope and the instructional, research, and/or service programs of the campus.
      2. Resources. A proposed or pro forma budget of no less than five (5) years, showing source of funds along with an indication that there are sufficient human and physical resources to achieve the center鈥檚 or institute鈥檚 purpose. All financial documents must be reviewed by the campus Vice President of Finance, with a memo from that VP verifying the anticipated viability of the center/institute as part of the submission packet to the Board. The System CFO will also review the proposed Center/Institute budget prior to the request for approval by the Board.
      3. Organization. The proposed center or institute must identify a recommended director, demonstrating appropriate credentials and show the internal reporting relationship that is proposed for the entity. If external funding is part of the center/institute鈥檚 proposed budget, the campus should demonstrate that a structure exists to enable the center/institute to apply for, and receive, external funding such as grants and contracts.
   4. Steps for Obtaining Approval
      1. Development of a written proposal based on the criteria in this guideline.
      2. Review and approval at the campus level through a process approved by the President.
      3. Review and approval by the Chancellor.
      4. Review and approval by the Board of Trustees.
      5. Each center and institute must be reviewed periodically. The campus will establish the schedule and parameters of the reviews and submit them to the System鈥檚 Office of Academic Affairs.
   5. Annually, a list will be submitted to each campus by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic Affairs for verification of the operational status and leadership of each center or institute. The verified list will be provided to the Board as information in conjunction with its February meeting.

3. Guidelines for Establishing a New Academic Unit

   1. Definition. New academic units include, but are not limited to, departments, divisions, schools, and colleges.
   2. Types of Academic Units. An academic unit falls into one of the following:
      1. Department. An instructional unit encompassing a discrete branch of study; usually located within a division and/or a school or college. The department is usually a less inclusive unit than a division, although this is not always the case.
      2. Division. An instructional unit which usually includes two or more academic departments representing allied fields of study. (For example, a Division of Natural Sciences might include departments of biology, chemistry, physics and geology). Usually, but not always, a division is a more prominent entity than a department. (Some institutions identify the department as the more inclusive unit. In such cases, the department might include several divisions.)
      3. School. An instructional unit within an institution of higher education which usually encompasses a professional discipline such as medicine, engineering, education, etc. and which often includes several academic divisions and/or departments. A school is usually under the administration of a dean or director. Often, though not always, a school is less inclusive than a college.
      4. College. An instructional unit within a university that usually includes several academic divisions and/or departments and is usually administered by a dean. Often, though not always, a college is a more prominent or inclusive unit than a school. As used here, the term 鈥渃ollege鈥� does not pertain to separate institutions known as colleges, such as community college or technical college.
   3. Criteria. A proposed new academic unit must meet the following three criteria and would be submitted to the President, to the Chancellor, and then to the Board of Trustees.
      1. Purpose. A clearly defined purpose directly related to the role and scope and the instructional, research, and/or service programs of the campus.
      2. Resources. A five-year budget showing source of funds, along with an indication that there are sufficient human, fiscal, and physical resources (classroom/office space, lab space, etc.) to achieve the academic unit鈥檚 purpose.
      3. Organization. The proposed academic unit must identify an administrative head, show the internal reporting relationship, and have a structure that enables the unit to effectively achieve its purpose.
   4. Steps for Obtaining Approval
      1. Development of a written proposal based on the criteria in this guideline.
      2. Review and approval at the campus level through a process approved by the President.
      3. Review and approval by the Chancellor.
      4. Review and approval by the Board of Trustees.
      5. Each academic unit must be reviewed periodically. The campus will establish the schedule and parameters of the reviews and submit them to the System鈥檚 Office of Academic Affairs.

4. Guidelines for Changes to Existing Academic, Research, Service, & Administrative Units

   1. When an extension, expansion, or other substantial alteration or termination, closure, or deletion of an existing unit (academic, research, service, and administrative, including departments, divisions, schools, colleges, centers, and institutes) is proposed , the president of the institution shall notify the Chancellor before the action is taken.
   2. The notification of the termination, deletion, or closure of a unit shall include the following information in its supporting materials:
      1. The purpose of the unit.
      2. The reasons for termination, closure, or deletion.
      3. A description of all funding for, property of, and individuals employed in the unit and the proposed disposition of the funding, property, and employees. If donor funds were used to establish the unit (such as a center or institute), a memo or other documentation from the campus Vice President for Advancement must be included in the supporting documents confirming that the donor/donor heirs have been contacted regarding the closure of the unit and identifying how any remaining donor funds will be used.
      4. Any impact on students should be described and appropriately addressed.
   3. The Chancellor shall recommend to The Board of Trustees the disposition of the proposed administrative action.

5. Guidelines for Establishing, Modifying or Closing Off-Campus Sites, & Branch Campuses

   Off-campus instructional sites include locations that are geographically apart from a UAS campus鈥檚 main location and where instruction is delivered. Expectations related to establishing, modifying, or closing sites that provide face-to-face classroom instruction in any location that is away from the approved and recognized main campus of the institution are similar to those outlined for academic, research, service, and administrative units. Service areas for establishing off-campus sites are outlined by the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education (ACHE), as well as general guidelines for the regulation and reporting requirements of such sites. Campuses are also expected to comply with accreditation-related requirements for establishing, modifying, closing, and reporting on off-campus instructional sites.

(Adopted June 17, 1987 as Board Rule 517; amended and renumbered December 5, 1997; amended May 7, 1999; November 19, 1999; amended November 3, 2023.)

1. Policy Statements

   The Board of Trustees requires the institutions of The 91原创 System periodically to review and evaluate all programs of instruction, research, and service.

   The review and evaluation results must be submitted to the Chancellor鈥檚 Office as an Executive Summary.

2. Guidelines for the Review of Existing Programs

   1. Objectives
      1. The major value of any program review process derives from the degree of self-evaluation, which a serious review catalyzes and promotes. The purpose of this process is to provide for a formal, systematic review of the many programs being offered under the auspices of the campuses. The intent is not to duplicate or supplant the program reviews conducted by various professional accrediting agencies (such as exist in Business, Education, and others), but rather to provide a means for internal review free from the specific goals and constraints of such external reviews. Every effort will be made, however, to coordinate internal and external reviews in order to avoid duplication of data collection.
      2. More specifically, the aim of the review of existing programs is to raise the quality of education in The 91原创 System through:
         1. Acting as a catalyst for self-evaluation and self-improvement by the faculty in specific program areas;
         2. Identifying concerns and problems common throughout the university and those unique to specific programs;
         3. Identifying strengths and weaknesses in the University鈥檚 overall programs, examining alternatives for correcting and eliminating deficiencies, and making recommendations to the appropriate campus and System authorities.
   2. Review Procedures
      1. The administrative responsibility for the review process on each campus shall be that of the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs. The responsibility for coordinating the review process for the System is assigned to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs.
      2. The review of programs will be guided by three major principles:
         1. Improvement of education can be fostered most effectively by collecting and reviewing essential information about the program under review;
         2. Similar disciplines on a campus should be reviewed at the same time whenever possible; and
         3. All of the university's programs selected for review should be subject to comparable procedures, including a common format for the collection of information, and considered in accordance with the approved purposes of the program and the mission, role, and scope of the campus.
      3. It is the responsibility of the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs to provide the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs a description of the academic program review process for his/her campus.
      4. Upon completion of each program review, an Executive Summary shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.

(Adopted September 17, 1980 as Rule 520; revised November 1, 1996; amended and renumbered December 5, 1997; amended November 14, 2008.)

1. Policy Statement

   The institutions of The 91原创 System are responsible for submitting to the Chancellor plans regarding any changes in the status of an approved program. Such changes may include, but are not limited to: deactivation; reactivation; changes in delivery method; extensions or alterations of existing programs such as new areas of specialization (ex: concentrations, options, tracks, etc.); CIP code or program title changes; changes in degree nomenclature; and deletions of programs from the inventory. Generally, such changes are non- substantive and are submitted to the Board as information items.

2. Guidelines for Placing an Academic Program on Inactive Status

   1. Academic programs, including degrees and certificates, may be placed on 鈥渋nactive status鈥� by an institution of The 91原创 System. Inactive Status indicates that the campus is not currently admitting students. However, students in the program pipeline at the time it is designated as inactive can complete the program. A campus should follow the steps below when it is necessary to place a program on 鈥渋nactive status.鈥�
      1. The President should notify the Chancellor in writing of the institution鈥檚 decision to place a program on inactive status.
      2. With the letter of notification, the following information should be submitted:
         1. a statement summarizing the reason(s) the program is to be placed on inactive status;
         2. a brief statement on the procedure for handling program completions for any students in the program;
         3. a statement of any planning and assessment activities that will take place while the program is on inactive status;
         4. date inactive status will go into effect; and
         5. a completed 91原创 Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) Form C: Academic Program Inventory Inactive Status.
   2. After System Office review and approval, the institution鈥檚 plans to place the program on inactive status will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item.
   3. Notice to ACHE will be provided by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic and Student Affairs
   4. Programs that remain on inactive status for a period of five years without being reactivated will automatically be terminated and removed from the academic program inventory.

3. Guidelines for Reactivating an Academic Program

   1. Academic programs, including degrees and certificates, that have been placed on 鈥渋nactive status鈥� by an institution of The 91原创 System may be reinstated to 鈥渁ctive status鈥� within five years of being placed on inactive status without resubmitting a program proposal for approval. However, the Chancellor must be informed by the campus of plans to reinstate the program. Evidence of adequate human and fiscal resources and student demand to reactivate the program should be provided. A campus should follow the steps below when it is desirable to 鈥渞eactivate鈥� a program.
      1. The President should notify the Chancellor in writing regarding the intended reactivation.
      2. With the letter of intent, the following information should be included:
         1. a brief statement summarizing the reason(s) and date the program was placed on inactive status;
         2. a statement indicating institutional and other conditions that have changed to warrant reactivation of the program鈥攖his should include information about available resources and student demand for the program;
         3. a statement indicating the faculty and administrative review processes followed to consider the program for reactivation;
         4. a statement on any programmatic improvements that would be implemented when the program is reactivated;
         5. a copy of reports from consultants or outside reviewers, if either were used in the review process;
         6. based on stated goals and objectives, a statement on the methods and timetable to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program; and
         7. date of intended reactivation startup.
   2. After System Office review and approval, the institution鈥檚 plans to reactivate the program will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item.
   3. Notice of the planned reactivation of the program will then be provided to the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic and Student Affairs.
   4. Campuses should make every effort to inform the Chancellor of plans to reactivate a program no later than six months before the five-year inactive period expires to ensure the timely notification of the Board of Trustees and the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education. Inactive programs that are not presented for reactivation within five years, will be automatically terminated, removed from the Academic Program Inventory, and must follow the process for establishing a new degree or certificate program.

4. Guidelines for Terminating an Academic Program

   1. Institutions within the 91原创 System are expected to ensure that academic programs are regularly evaluated, meet post-implementation conditions, remain viable, and are relevant to the academic and employment needs of students and society. The following steps must be followed when it is determined that it is in the best interest of the institution and/or students to terminate an academic program:
   2. The Chancellor should be notified in writing regarding the intended program termination. The rationale for the termination and how the University will address the needs of any remaining students in the program should be outlined and plans for any faculty, financial resources, or facilities connected with the program should be addressed. Details confirming that faculty and administrative review processes to consider termination of the program were followed should also be provided.
   3. After System Office review and approval, the institution鈥檚 plan to terminate the program will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item.
   4. Notice to the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education will be confirmed by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic and Student Affairs.

5. Guidelines for Additions of Options, Tracks, Specializations, or Concentrations to Existing Programs

   1. Institutions within the 91原创 System are expected to submit to the Chancellor, with a copy to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, plans regarding additions of options, tracks, specializations, or other concentrations to existing programs. The following steps should be followed:
   2. The faculty completes ACHE Form C: Proposal Form for the Addition of an Option, Track, Specialization, or Concentration, etc., to an Existing Program and the campus submits it to the Chancellor, with a copy to the System Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for review.
   3. After System Office review, the institution鈥檚 plan to add options, tracks, specializations, or concentrations to existing programs will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item.
   4. Upon review of the item by the Board, the System Office of Academic and Student Affairs will notify the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education of the addition by 鈥渓ocking鈥� the submitted item in ACHE鈥檚 web portal.

6. Guidelines for Alteration of CIP Code, Program Title, and Degree Nomenclature or Other Curriculum Changes

   1. Institutions within the 91原创 System are expected to submit to the Chancellor, with a copy to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, plans regarding alteration of CIP code, program title, and degree nomenclature or other curriculum changes for existing academic programs. The following steps should be followed.
   2. The faculty completes ACHE Form A Information Item for the Alteration of CIP Code, Program Title, and Degree Nomenclature or ACHE Form B Description of Curriculum Changes and the campus submits the information to the Chancellor, with a copy to the System Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for review.
   3. After System Office review, the institution鈥檚 plan for the specified alteration will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item.
   4. Upon review of the item by the Board, the System Office of Academic and Student Affairs will notify the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education of the change by 鈥渓ocking鈥� the submitted item in ACHE鈥檚 web portal.

(Adopted December 5, 1997, Revised May 7, 1999; November 14, 2008, February 2, 2024.)

1. Policy Statement

   1. The Board of Trustees encourages the institutions of The 91原创 System to make efficient use of system-wide resources. To that end, efforts at collaboration and sharing, including cooperative, joint, and shared programs, must be explored at the campus and System levels whenever a new degree program of instruction is considered.
   2. All new degree programs, including cooperative, joint, and shared programs must be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to implementation.

2. Guidelines for Cooperative Programs

   1. Definition. A cooperative program is under the sponsorship of a single institution (identified as the primary institution) but contains elements of resource sharing agreed upon by one or more other institutions (the secondary institution(s)). The administrative control of such a program and commitment for maintaining the resources necessary to support it are the responsibility of the primary institution. The degree is granted under the seal of that institution and the program will be identified in the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education鈥檚 (ACHE) Academic Program Inventory for that institution only. The program is so designed that in the event the elements contributed by the secondary institution(s) are discontinued, the basic strength of the program will not be damaged seriously and the institution administering the program will be able to continue to do so with few or no additional resources.
   2. A student will be admitted to the primary institution according to its program admission requirements.
   3. For cooperative programs requiring a thesis or dissertation, the major professor/thesis chairperson and the majority of the committee will be from the primary institution.
   4. A student may take courses listed in the program of study from either institution with permission of the major professor.
   5. Each institution accepts the faculty appointments of the other campus without the necessity for re-evaluation.
   6. A student must satisfy all degree requirements according to the primary institution鈥檚 guidelines.
   7. Any issues requiring attention or resolution will be considered by the appropriate department chairs and dean(s).
   8. Any residency requirement for the program may be satisfied by a student being a resident on either campus.
   9. Each cooperative program must be reviewed periodically. The primary institution will establish the schedule and parameters of the reviews and submit them to the System鈥檚 Office of Academic Affairs. The results of each review are to be reported to the Presidents and the Chancellor.

3. Guidelines for Development of a Joint/Shared Program Proposal

   1. Definitions
      1. A joint program is one that is mutually sponsored by two or more campuses, leading to a single degree that is conferred by all participating institutions.
      2. A shared program is mutually sponsored by two or more institutions and benefits from their collaborative efforts. However, withdrawal of one or more partners does not preclude the continuation of an independently sponsored program (i.e. the program is not automatically terminated).
   2. When there is an interest in a new program by one or more campuses in The 91原创 System, the question of whether a joint program is desirable must be considered by the System Academic Council (SAC). Recommendations by the SAC on joint programs are considered by the Presidents of the affected campuses.
   3. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a program should be joint are the mission and role of the campuses in question, student demand, potential benefits to the region, and the quality and quantity of the faculty and other learning resources to support the program.
   4. When it is agreed that a proposal for a joint program should be developed, it is the responsibility of each campus involved in the program to choose a representative to take responsibility for assuring that the proposal follows campus and System guidelines.
   5. The SAC must review all completed proposals for joint programs to ensure that the appropriate guidelines and procedures have been followed. Following that review the proposal goes back to the Presidents of the campuses sponsoring the program. When the Presidents are satisfied with the proposal, it is forwarded to the Chancellor.
   6. If the Chancellor concurs, the proposal for a joint program will be presented to the Board of Trustees and the 91原创 Commission on Higher Education in the same order and following the same procedures as other proposals for new programs. (See guidelines for new program approval.)
   7. The joint program is so designed that its viability is dependent upon the shared resources of the participating institutions. In the event one or more of the participating institutions cannot meet its commitments and responsibilities, the program would be terminated. Shared programs benefit from, but are not totally dependent on, the collaborative effort. Therefore, withdrawal of one collaborating institution does not automatically terminate the program.

4. Guidelines for the Operation of Joint/Shared Programs

   1. A joint/shared program in The 91原创 System has the same requirements for each student, regardless of the campus where he or she is enrolled. That includes but is not limited to standardized entrance requirements, minimum course and hour requirements, and program examinations (such as qualifying examinations for the Ph.D. degree).
   2. Qualified faculty from each of the campuses participating in the program are included in the program faculty. Rules for appointment to the program faculty are established for each program. The procedure for selection of new program faculty must include the other program faculty members. However, the primary departmental affiliation and appointment of the individual faculty members, along with determination of tenure, promotion, and salary, remains at the campus level. Program faculty members are granted appropriate status to allow for full participation in the degree program at those campuses where they do not already hold an appointment.
   3. The program description sets forth some specific procedures and processes making it possible for students to take courses or do research on other campuses. These may differ depending on the type and level of program.
   4. The faculty and students in the program meet together at least twice each academic year. Seminars, conferences, and other meetings for this purpose are encouraged.
   5. For joint/shared doctoral programs that require a thesis or dissertation, the thesis or dissertation committee of each student must include at least one faculty member from each campus.
   6. Each program has a director, who is chosen from among the program faculty, appointed by his/her campus President, and reported to the Chancellor. Each program also has a coordinating committee composed of
   7. an equal number of faculty representatives from each campus participating in the program. The coordinating committee is chaired by the director, and meets at least once each academic term to consider plans, policies, and administrative matters. If further administrative action is required, the director consults with the appropriate deans, and, if necessary, the provost on his/her campus. The provost may bring the matter to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs and the System Academic Council for discussion.
   8. Depending on the size and complexity of the program, special arrangements may be made to provide release time, clerical assistance, a travel allowance, or other expenses for the program director. In this case the costs are to be shared among the campuses in the program.
   9. Each student successfully meeting all of the program requirements will receive a degree that is designed for the program and that is the same regardless of the home campus of the student.
   10. Each joint/shared program must be reviewed periodically. The coordinating committee will establish the schedule and parameters of the reviews and submit them to the System鈥檚 Office of Academic and Student Affairs. The results of each review are to be reported to the Presidents and the Chancellor.

(Adopted December 5, 1997; amended May 7, 1999; November 14, 2008.)

1. Policy Statements

   1. The President of each institution shall have the primary responsibility for developing and implementing the academic program planning process for his/her campus.
   2. A three-year academic program planning document will be presented annually to the Board for its review. Any campus adjustments made to the three-year academic plan after the annual review by the Board should be submitted as soon as possible in writing to the Chancellor and the System Office of Academic and Student Affairs to coincide with the next scheduled Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee agenda as an information item.
   3. Guidelines for the submission and review of the Academic Program Planning document are developed and administered by the System鈥檚 Office of Academic and Student Affairs.

2. Planning Process Guidelines

   1. Each institution shall submit annually a three-year academic program planning document to the Chancellor.
   2. The Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs will review the institutions鈥� individual planning documents and compile them into a System Academic Program Planning document.
   3. Upon the Chancellor鈥檚 recommendation, the System Academic Program Planning document will be presented to the Board.
   4. The planning document shall include the following sections:
      1. New academic degree programs and certificate programs requiring Board approval that are being planned
         1. Year submitted or anticipated submission for Board approval
         2. Six-digit CIP Code
         3. Degree (ex: Bachelor of Arts, Master of Science, Ph.D., etc.)
         4. Program Title
         5. Program Description
         6. Role Change?(i.e. Is the program outside of the usual role and scope of the institution?)
         7. UAS Category* (See category options A-G below)
         8. Implementation date (proposed or implemented)
         
         A = Proposal has been approved by ACHE and is awaiting review and final approval by the Board of Trustees.
         B = Proposal is at ACHE and is awaiting review and approval.
         C = Proposal has completed campus and System reviews and is ready for consideration by the Board of Trustees and ACHE.
         D = Proposal is expected to be completed by the campus and submitted for System review within the next 12 months.
         E = Proposal is under development but is not likely to complete campus review in the next 12 months.
         F = A Notice of Pending Proposal (NPP) form has been developed and sent to the UAS Office of Academic and Student Affairs.
         G = Program is still in the early planning stages. It has not been reviewed by the campus and appearance on the list is merely an indication that the possibility of a program is being considered.
         NOTE: Plans for degree nomenclature changes (i.e. Ed.D. to Ph.D., etc.) shall require a proposal and resolution requesting Board action, but such changes are not equivalent to the development of a degree in a new area or at an entirely new level.
      2. Other planning initiatives of the institution, such as those listed below:
         1. Academic structure changes
         2. New academic structures, such as colleges, departments, units, etc.
         3. Major outreach initiatives
         4. Major admission changes
         5. Major changes that will affect educational programs, faculty, and/or the student body

(Adopted December 5, 1997; amended May 7, 1999; November 14, 2008; June 7, 2024.)

1. Policy Statements

   1. In order to maintain uniformity and the highest degree of prestige and selectivity, the establishment of new Academic Chairs, Professorships, and Endowed Lectureships must be submitted for review and approval to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.
   2. The institutions of The 91原创 System are required to submit for review and approval any nomination of a holder of an endowed Professorship or Academic Chair to the Chancellor. Upon the approval of the Chancellor, the nomination will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
   3. System and institution procedures for appointment to endowed chairs and endowed professorships require the approval of the Board of Trustees.

2. Guidelines for Obtaining Approval of an Academic Chair, Endowed Professorship, or Endowed Lectureship

   1. After the required level of the funding for the academic chair, endowed professorship, or endowed lectureship has been received by the institution, the President sends a request for the establishment to the Chancellor.
   2. The Chancellor will make a decision as to the disposition of the request and may choose to forward it to the Board or ask for additional information.
   3. If the Chancellor recommends approval of establishing the academic chair, endowed professorship, or endowed lectureship, the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee will be provided a copy of the information. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the full Board.
   4. Academic chairs, endowed professorships, and endowed lectureships are officially recognized only after being approved by the Board.

3. Guidelines for Designating a Holder of an Academic Chair or Endowed Professorship

   1. Within a University, selection procedures may differ among schools, colleges, divisions, or departments, as necessary to conform to the practices and customs of particular academic disciplines and/or professions.
   2. The 91原创 System guidelines are intended as a framework within which the institutions may develop individual processes and procedures to suit their special needs.
   3. Where the funding for an endowment is tied to an administrative appointment, the search process for the administrative appointment must include consideration of the endowed chair or endowed professorship.
   4. The process for filling an endowed chair or endowed professorship shall include a comprehensive search to identify and recruit candidates who can make the greatest contributions to the institutions.
   5. In reviewing the credentials of endowed chair candidates, outside peers shall be consulted. Peer reviewers may include, but not be limited to, those suggested by the candidates.
   6. The selection process shall include provisions for direct input from faculty members of the academic department(s) in which the chair or other appointee resides.
   7. When an institution has completed a search and wishes to nominate a person for appointment by the Board, a recommendation will be forwarded by the President to the Chancellor along with an outline of the steps and recommendations followed in the search process, a list of search committee members, a copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae, and written evaluations by internal and external peers.
   8. The Chancellor will make a decision as to the disposition of the recommendation and may then choose to forward it to the Board, ask for additional information, or request that the institution renew the search process.
   9. If the Chancellor recommends appointment of the nominee, the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee of the Board will be provided with a copy of the candidate's curriculum vitae and a supporting letter(s) from the institution administration, which shall include a short summary of the reasons for nominating this individual. The Committee will also be given an opportunity to ask questions of institution and System administrators concerning the suitability of the nominee for the endowed chair or endowed professorship position. The Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board.
   10. Appointments to endowed chairs and endowed professorships may be finalized only after approval by the Board of Trustees of The 91原创. Recommended endowed appointments associated with an offer of employment should note that the appointment is pending approval by the Board of Trustees. Existing faculty and administrators who are appointed to endowed chairs, professorships, etc., should not adopt or utilize the related title until Board approval has been confirmed.
   11. Given the prestige and selectivity of endowed positions, it is expected that campuses will engage in a routine process of assessment to ensure that all appointees continue to meet all expectations associated with the appointment I. If an appointment to an endowed position comes with a specified term (i.e. specific number of months, years, or identified expiration date) and the appointment is to be extended, the campus should inform the Chancellor and System Office of Academic and Student Affairs of plans for the continuation of that appointment in the form of an appropriate letter from the President to the Chancellor, recommending the continuation of the endowed appointment(s) prior to expiration. The extension of multiple appointments may be outlined in a single letter of notification and submitted to the Board for administrative action.

4. Guidelines for Short-Term Appointments to Endowed Chairs

   1. Definition. Endowed Chairs that have been authorized by the Board of Trustees to allow appointments of less than one (1) academic year (12 months) may be established in order to accommodate the schedules of distinguished artists and scholars.
   2. Guidelines
      1. A short-term appointment to an endowed chair may be made with prior approval by the Chancellor.
      2. The President of the campus on which the short-term appointment is located should forward to the Chancellor a request for approval of the candidate. The request must include the following information: the name of the individual; the term of the appointment; a summary of the terms of the contract; an overview of the credentials of the appointee, and where and what the individual鈥檚 permanent position is.
      3. The Chancellor shall notify the President when approval is given for an appointment.
      4. An annual report will be presented to the Board of Trustees as an information item on the short-term appointments to endowed chairs for that academic year.

5. Guidelines for Appointments to Professorships

   The Board recognizes the following classifications of university professorships:

   1. 91原创 Trustee Professor
      1. A System-wide appointment limited in number, recognizing preeminent distinction and service to the System, and exclusively under the control of the Board.
      2. In making such appointments, the Board will consult with the Chancellor, Presidents, and appropriate faculty groups on all campuses.
   2. Distinguished Professor
      1. A campus-wide prestigious appointment, recognizing international accomplishments, to be limited in number, and to be recommended to the Board by the appropriate President and the Chancellor in order to confer richly deserved prestige and honor on those selected to receive this designation.
      2. The following criteria will be used in determining the selection of a 鈥淒istinguished Professor鈥�:
         1. Accomplishments bringing great credit to the University.
         2. Noteworthy academic service to the University as a teacher and/or research scientist and/or clinician.
         3. International recognition for scholarly contribution to the individual鈥檚 chosen profession.
         4. Outstanding performance of service associated with the individual鈥檚 professional position.
         5. Numerous achievements and extensive peer recognition in the individual鈥檚 chosen profession or academic discipline.
         6. Unstinting dedication to standards of excellence in all endeavors.
         7. Exemplary character and integrity reflecting great honor upon the University.
      3. Variations in this title may be used by a campus to denote specific functions such as 鈥淒istinguished Research Professor鈥� or 鈥淒istinguished Service Professor.鈥�
   3. University Professor
      1. A campus-wide appointment, primarily prestigious in a specific discipline, to be recommended to the Board by the appropriate President and the Chancellor, to bestow upon an individual an academic rank that transcends departmental and disciplinary lines, allowing each designated individual the greatest latitude in teaching, writing, and scholarly research, and that gives such an individual with broad expertise a university-wide platform.
      2. The following criteria will be used in the selection of an individual to be designated 鈥淯niversity Professor鈥�:
         1. Scholarly achievement and intellectual maturity.
         2. Dedication to the highest standards of professional excellence.
         3. Numerous achievements and extensive peer recognition in the individual鈥檚 chosen professional field.
         4. Academic competence to enable him/her to undertake cross-departmental, cross-disciplinary activities in research and teaching, and university and community service.
      
      Variations in this title may be used by a campus to denote specific functions such as 鈥淯niversity Research Professor鈥� or 鈥淯niversity Service Professor.鈥�

(Adopted July 16, 1980 as Rule 370; amended and renumbered December 5, 1997; amended November 14, 2008; June 7, 2024.)

1. Purpose

   In view of the far-reaching research on the various campuses of 91原创 (hereinafter referred to as University), it is inevitable that new discoveries and inventions will be made. The members of the Board of Trustees (hereinafter referred to as the Board) recognize the importance of obtaining the greatest public benefit and usefulness from the products of the University's scientific research and inventiveness, and that the protection and control provided under patent laws or other legal means for the protection of property rights may be necessary to obtain this goal. It is further recognized that employees of the University need assistance in determining and evaluating patentability and in prosecuting patent applications for or otherwise protecting inventions made by them. Furthermore, many such inventions involve equities beyond those of the inventor since the use of University facilities, the assignment of duties as a condition of employment, and the use of research funds with contractual obligations regarding patent rights give rise to questions concerning the rights and equities of all concerned. The purpose of this patent policy is to establish a mechanism to serve the public benefit and interest, to determine and apprise all concerned parties of relative rights and equities, to facilitate patent applications, the licensing of inventions, the equitable distribution of any royalties or other financial returns, to provide necessary uniformity in patent matters, and to provide for adequate reporting of patent activities.

2. Policy and Procedure

   1. It shall be the policy of the Board to encourage the concept that patentable inventions produced at the University shall be used for the greatest possible public benefit and to provide every reasonable incentive to the faculty, students and staff for the disclosure, evaluation and dissemination of such inventions. When University support makes the research effort possible or when it provides support for the development of a patentable invention, it is reasonable for the University to participate in the fruits of such development, including reimbursement for its costs. To that end, the University encourages the procurement of patents for such inventions and the licensing or other commercialization thereof in the interest of the public, the inventor, and the University.
   2. The President of each campus shall appoint an officer or Patent Committee or designate a non-profit organization established for the benefit of the campus to administer this policy. Each campus President may promulgate additional regulations and guidelines pursuant to this Policy to administer this policy within his/her respective campus.
   3. This patent policy of the University, as amended from time to time, shall be deemed to be a condition of employment and contractual obligation, both while employed and thereafter, of every employee of each campus, including student employees, and a condition of enrollment and attendance and contractual obligation, both while in attendance and thereafter, by every student at each campus.
   4. Any invention or discovery (1) which is the result of research carried on by or under the direction of an employee of a campus of the University and/or having the costs thereof paid from funds provided by, under the control of or administered by a campus of the University, or (2) which is made by an employee of a campus of the University and which relates to the employee's field of work, or (3) which has been developed in whole or in part by the utilization of resources or facilities belonging to a campus of the University, shall be the property of the applicable campus of the University. The applicability of the above stated criteria to any invention or discovery will be determined at the sole discretion of the President of the respective campus of the University or his/her designee.
   5. As a condition of their employment or continued employment by or enrollment at a campus of the University, each faculty member, employee and student agrees that he/she is contractually bound by this patent policy as implemented by the respective campuses of the University and shall report to the officer or non-profit organization so designated by the President of the campus of the University to manage and commercialize such inventions and discoveries with respect to that campus, any invention or discovery which such faculty member, employee or student has conceived, discovered, developed and/or reduced to practice by them or under their direction at any time following their initial appointment by, employment by, or enrollment with that campus of the University. All inventions and discoveries that meet the criteria of II.D. are hereby assigned to the University for the benefit of the appropriate campus of the University. Faculty members, employees and students do not have the authority to assign rights in such inventions and discoveries to third parties. The President of each campus of the University is authorized to further assign any invention or discovery it is deemed to own pursuant to this policy to a designated nonprofit organization established for the benefit of the respective campus of the University, which said assignment shall be conditioned on full compliance with this policy, regulations promulgated hereunder by the Board or by the President of the respective campus of the University, and appropriate state and federal law.
   6. If the invention or discovery is one which is determined to be owned by a campus of the University, the President of the applicable campus or his/her designee shall further evaluate the invention or discovery and determine if and how best to develop, commercialize and protect the invention as he/she deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, applying for patent protection, or requesting further development of the invention or discovery. In making this determination, the benefits that might accrue to both the campus of the University and the inventor(s) shall be considered. The designee shall act promptly in carrying out these duties so that the rights of the inventor(s) and the campus of the University may be protected.
   7. If it is determined that the invention or discovery is one which is owned by the University pursuant to this policy but is one in which a campus of the University has no interest in retaining ownership, a campus of the University (or the non鈥損rofit organization to which an invention may have been assigned in accordance with the terms of this policy) may, but is under no obligation to, release its ownership rights to the inventor(s) on terms and conditions determined by the President or his/her designee, subject to any third party rights.
   8. In consideration of the automatic assignment of ownership set forth in this policy, the Presidents or their designees are authorized to pay to the inventors, their heirs or assigns, a percentage of the royalties, fees, or other financial returns received by the campus of the University (or the non鈥損rofit organization to which an invention may have been assigned in accordance with the terms of this policy) from such invention after a deduction of fifteen percent (15%) thereof for overhead costs, plus a deduction for costs of patenting and protection of intellectual property rights and any unusual expenses paid by the campus or its non-profit designee or the inventor (which have been approved by the campus or its non-profit designee). Each campus President shall be responsible for the development of a policy governing the percentage of royalties, fees, and other financial returns on an invention paid to the inventor and governing the internal distribution of the campus of the University鈥檚 share of such financial returns.
   9. It is understood that many research contracts, grants, and consulting agreements from or with the United States Government or its agencies, corporations, or individuals contain ownership of intellectual property clauses that may be at variance with this policy but which, if agreed to, require compliance. Such documents which are at variance with this policy may be referred to the appropriate designated officer of the campus for recommendations prior to approval.
   10. Annual reports of patent matters will be made to the Chancellor for his/her information and that of the Board within thirty days (30) following the end of each fiscal year, to include as a minimum identification of each patent and patent applied for, the distribution of patent revenue including the share going to the inventor, and the expenses of obtaining and managing patents. The Chancellor may prescribe appropriate formats for such reporting.

(Adopted February 23, 1980 as Rule 510; amended September 16, 1981, February 27, 1986; renumbered December 5, 1997; amended June 19, 2009, February 8, 2013.)

In order to provide for the orderly review and approval of new residency programs or the expansion of existing programs within The 91原创 School of Medicine (UASOM), and to clarify the sequential steps (implicit and explicit) required by Board guidelines, the following procedure shall be followed.

In the event that the Associate Dean of the UASOM-Tuscaloosa Campus, the UASOM-Huntsville Campus or UASOM Associate Dean for Education feels there may be a need for establishment of a medical residency program or for expansion of an existing residency program, the Vice President and Dean of the UASOM shall be promptly notified. This notice shall include details of the need and shall specifically address the requirements for review included in paragraph 1 below. The Vice President and Dean shall consider the request and, based on the establishment of need and reasonable assurance of the availability of the essential resources, shall initiate a comprehensive institutional review of the health care facility (if pertinent) and the component of UASOM, to include but not necessarily to be limited to the following:

1. The basis for the institution review shall be the current Directory of Accredited Residencies of the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education. All institutional and program requirements must apply. It is essential to approval of any residency program that the requirements of the above cited sections be met, and the review will verify the existence or absence of the specified resources. In the absence of resources, which are specified as essential by the appropriate residency review committee and the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education, the review will indicate the deficiency and the Dean's plan for its elimination.
2. The Vice President and Dean of the UASOM shall require the Associate Dean for Education to study the results of institutional review carefully. In those cases where need is established and resources are available, an appropriate recommendation will be developed for sequential processing as follows:
   • Vice President and Dean, UASOM
   • Executive Director of appropriate hospital
   • CEO, UAB Health System
   • President, UAB
   • Chancellor
   • Board of Trustees

The importance of adherence to the above prescribed channels of authority is emphasized.

Upon final approval of the Board, the appropriate Vice President and Dean is authorized to develop and submit an application in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the appropriate residency review committee.

Adopted March 11, 1978, as Rule 551; renumbered December 5, 1997; amended April 19, 2002.)

The following procedure shall be followed in the review and approval of any affiliation agreement between a health care facility and any component or unit of The 91原创 School of Medicine which covers any aspect of undergraduate medical education or house staff training (residencies) within The 91原创 School of Medicine.

1. At such time as there may be a need for a formal affiliation agreement between a community health care facility and the UASOM, the Vice President and Dean will be so informed. It is important that such information be furnished at the outset.
2. After concluding that there is a need for a formal affiliation agreement between a community health care facility and the UASOM and following appropriate and established institutional review and approval, the Vice President and Dean shall authorize the development of an appropriate affiliation agreement. The request shall include a description of the need for an affiliation, of how the affiliation will meet that need, of the responsibilities of the health care facility and the System under agreement, and an estimate of the financial, personnel, and other resources required for the program.
3. Any affiliation agreement shall be consistent with the policies of 91原创.
4. The channel of approval for proposed affiliation agreements, following appropriate and established institutional review and approval shall be through the Vice President and Dean, who may call upon legal counsel from the appropriate campus, from UAB, or from the General Counsel of 91原创.
5. After the Vice President and Dean of the UASOM approves an affiliation agreement, it will be forwarded to the President of the appropriate campus prior to being forwarded to the Chancellor and the Board for review and final approval.
6. Affiliation agreements are not to be forwarded along the above channel of approval until written action is obtained from each of the appropriate preceding approving officials.

(Adopted March 11, 1978 as Rule 552; renumbered December 5, 1997; amended April 19, 2002.)

1. A Hall of Fame is a format for the recognition of accomplishment and achievement.
2. In order to maintain uniformity and a high degree of prestige and selectivity, the proposed establishment of Hall of Fame (Hall) by any of the campuses of the University or any division of a campus, and any future inductions of individuals, organizations, businesses, or associations into these new or existing Halls, shall be submitted for review and be approved by the president of the campus with which the Hall is affiliated.
3. Only after approval by the campus president shall a Hall be established or induct new members.
4. Inductees or individuals shall include natural persons, organizations, businesses, associations, or any other entity being memorialized.

(Adopted February 4, 2005.)