MINUTES
Romanus, Susan Regina and Kathy were members of the team.
The discussions of the different scenarios helped us clarify what we as CGE need
whether we stay at Augsburg or we decide to transition to another institution. The
third slide titled :Considerations for partnering with Augsburg or any other
academic or non academic institution attempts to put in writing what the team
felt CGE needs in order to move into the future .
Slide #17 discusses if we separate from Augsburg what we would request in terms of
property and vehicles and slide #18 details a possible timeline.
I am attaching all slides for staff to see the full discussion .
GOAL
The purpose of this
group is to
discuss and rank
various
alternatives for
CGE than at
Augsburg College
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PARTNERING –
AUGSBURG, ACADEMIC OR NON-ACA INST
S EPA R AT E C G E
MERGED W/PARTNER
Control over budget and separate fund or bank
account
Office space
Mission, vision and strategic plan
Accounting – accounts payable/receivable,
audit
Website
Marketing
Staff – hiring, evaluation, etc.
Pedagogy/long track record/best practices in study
abroad
International bank accounts – would need to see
what was best for US bank account
Separate board or ability to participate in decisions
impacting CGE’s work
Find a school of record if not at an academic
institution
Fundraising
Phone/internet (with ability to answer CGE
phones separate)
General liability insurance coverage
Could be a fiscal agent role but may not be
best
Payroll and benefits
Legal representation
Ability to accredit our academic programs , if
possible
Use of general education travel license to
Cuba if at a higher education institution
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS- #1 STAYING WITH
AUGSBURG
Summary
A new provost has been hired to start August 1, which will become the second in
command person at Augsburg. There is currently no funds in the budget to hire a new
AVP, International Programs/Executive Director, CGE. In FY14
Benefits

Would be in a stronger position that the previous dean vis a vis the Financial VP
Questions and
Considerations


Will a new provost see CGE as important to the mission of Augsburg ?
Will new provost see CGE only as revenue producing therefore phasing CGE out
given the financial crisis
Discussion/ranking
- Move ahead exploring other options without waiting for her
- Present our own arguments to her and interpreting our mission and budget rather than
having it filtered (Regina will report directly to her)
- Work out a financial model with less liability and risk for Augsburg
- Restructure our arrangement with Augsburg (contract team is working on that)
- Need to lay out how we approach her month by month and with specific agenda for
each
- Research what other models there are with affiliates to Augsburg – how does it work
for them with personnel, budget, autonomy
# 2 –PARTNER WITH A NON-ACADEMIC INSTITUTION
Summary
Benefits
Questions and
Considerations
Potential Budget
Impacts
Discussion/Ranking
Move to another organization like HECUA, Autonomous University, Global Citizen Network, Amizade
that either offers academic programming now or wants to add that component, or WPF with its
synergy project. Essential to maintain separate CGE branding, but realign administrative structure
with another organization.

May help overhead costs for them and CGE since do similar work

Could assist cross promotion between programs, expanding audiences and program/country
options

Would need a school of record for academic programs in order to grant credit

Complicated to extract many things from Augsburg – branding, web URL, properties

Could be a long process since they are governed by boards

If it wasn’t in the Twin Cities would most likely mean losing most/all US staff

Would lose staff tuition benefit

Cuba academic license trips (semester and ST) would not be legal without applying for a
different license, so no guarantee on timeline

Probably all property and equipment would be sold and support staff would lose jobs in all
sites

May be difficult to maintain separate branding in partnership with another organization

May lose revenue for all Cuba academic license programs (semester and ST) – not sure how
licensing works for non-academic institutions)

Increased US costs for rent, computers, phone/internet, etc.

Increased direct program costs since wouldn’t have own houses, vehicles

How do non-academic institutions get licenses for Cuba semesters? Susan researching

Many third party providers do this with a variety of institutions. Seems easier than thought.
Fees not clear but one states $250/student.

Could we set up a seminary as a school of record to offer credit for cultural immersion for
students from many seminaries.. Could this be a pilot?
#3 – PARTNER WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTION(S)
Summary
Move to another college or university
Benefits






Questions and
Considerations



Could be a better mission fit
Would be able to grant credit for academic programs
May get more of a base of participants for CGE semester programs
Possibly more travel seminars with professors
Would be able to use general education license
Negotiate a transfer of our branding out of Augsburg - Would our branding
change?
Could be a long process since they are governed by boards
If it wasn’t in the Twin Cities would most likely mean losing most/all US staff
Would property and equipment be sold and support staff lose jobs in all
sites?
Potential Budget
Impacts

Would need to negotiate up front on what financial expectations they would
have
Discussion/Ranking


Would need to have a written agreement
Can’t do anything until find out how core we are to Augsburg
#4 – EVERYONE FOR THEMSELVES
Summary
Each site determine what the best move is for them. For instance, Central America affiliate
with a Jesuit University, Namibia affiliate with Clark, Valpo, PLU or another regular feeder.
Mexico stay at Augsburg or affiliate with one of the social work consortia schools. ITS
Cuba?
Benefits
May allow the work to continue in some fashion for each site.
Questions and
Considerations



Would probably dissolve CGE as a whole and the Minneapolis office
Last case scenario
How does the WPF wanting to build a center in Nicaragua with another institution factor
into this? May involve establishing a competitor to CGE Nicaragua.
Discussion/Ranking

After discussion this is ranked the lowest, so won’t spend any further time discussing
#5 –INCORPORATE AS A NONPROFIT ORG
Summary
CGE incorporate as a separate nonprofit organization
Benefits

Could be the decision to give the most autonomy
Questions and
Considerations



Time consuming process to incorporate and requires a board, bylaws, etc.
Complicated to extract many things from Augsburg – branding, web URL, properties
Expenses would be more unknown for US costs such as rent, IT, communication,
design, etc.
Could also be a hybrid of incorporating separately, but still stay at Augsburg
General liability insurance – how expensive would that be and other costs such as audits
Monitoring cash flow could be tricky
More administrative work especially in Mpls.
Cuba programs would only be legal through applying for travel licenses, so no guarantee
on timeline
Would give greater independence but could provide higher risk given the market
conditions





Discussion/ranking:

#6 – SITES BECOME INDEPENDENT NGO’S IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH CGE
Summary
Each site determine gain legal status in their country, if they don’t already have it. They
would then just work in partnership with CGE rather than being a part of Augsburg. This
would mean that they would bill Augsburg for services and CGE would pay them like we do
MLK. They would no longer have to submit monthly finance reports to the college or be
subject to the college’s hiring policies.
Benefits
Each site is already self sustaining, so this would reduce the increased paperwork required
by Augsburg.
Questions and
Considerations



How would Augsburg handle the transfer of vehicles and houses?
Is there a way that international staff could maintain tuition benefits (or at least those
who’ve been on staff previously)
Staff from the US working internationally would have to be paid locally
Variations



Separate NGO while still affiliated with Augsburg
Separate NGO while affiliated with another institution
Separate NGO with CGE becoming a separate organization
Discussion/ranking:


Why then be connected to Augsburg?
What would prevent sites from working directly with sponsors rather than going through
Minneapolis?
SOME POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
-
-
If CGE needs to go
elsewhere, which of
these is the best
option (or some
combo of options)?
Are all of the pro’s
and con’s listed for
each scenario?
What could a
possible timeline
be for a transition?
HOW WOULD IT WORK TO SEPARATE FROM AUGSBURG
BUT STILL PARTNER WITH THEM?
Similar to current arrangement for Cuba semester program
 Agreement reached with other institution interested and capable of using
institutional in-country depth to take on responsibility for site staff and
programming.
 Semester program continues as a joint Augburg-”X” university program, where
Augsburg gets set amount for each student recruited by Augsburg.
 Augsburg continues its programming, but does not deal with fixed costs or risk
 “X” university can take advantage of in-country depth to facilitate research, field
work, and new products, as well as short term programming, and CGE brand
continues with current semester programs
 Mpls staff continue to work on current semester programs, contract relationship
with field for working short term programs, and work on developing similar
relationships in new countries.
KEY TO SUCCESS OF WIN-WIN: TRANSITION
PERIOD AND PLAN
If Augsburg helps facilitate a smooth transition for site staff, site staff will be highly
motivated to continue working with Augsburg
Smooth transition will maintain quality of programming and preservation of brand
reputation.
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING OTHER OPTIONS
How do we best continue the mission of CGE that is still valid in today’s context?
How does each scenario impact property (houses and vehicles)?
How can higher education take better advantage of CGE and CGE impact higher ed, including through the development of new products?
How do we best take advantage of talented long-term staff in Minneapolis and in each international site?
How do we interface with Augsburg/or another institution that goes just beyond the financial bottom line?
How do we interface with the other institution?
How does each scenario impact programs and sites?
What could the timeline be for each scenario?
Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Maintain the current level of salaries and benefits (pension, tuition, health insurance, vacation, etc.) for staff as possible
Preservation of as many of the CGE staff as possible
Accreditation capability for semester and short-term programs
General liability coverage for program participants
Need to transition without burning bridges with Augsburg or other sponsors/feeders
Ability to create a written agreement to articulate the relationship(s) with any institution(s)
Ensure we can carry out our programs within the legal rubrics of each country in which we work
RANKING
Investigate further
Be more proactive in establishing a win-win relationship with Augsburg
Join another academic institution
Merge with another organization
Middle
Incorporate as a separate nonprofit – only consider in an affiliation with other
organization(s) doing similar work – ie, Fair Trade Study abroad
Lower – don’t investigate further now
Everyone for themselves
Sites becoming independent NGO’s in partnership with Augsburg
PROACTIVE REQUESTS TO AUGSBURG
Signed agreement
•
Establish costs for CGE similar to what’s being done for other primarily externally serving programs at
Augsburg (CDC, Urban Debate, Campus Compact, etc.) and practices in the study abroad field
•
CGE be put in a restricted fund and be allowed to make hiring and spending decisions without exceeding
available funds
•
Further develop the potential that CGE has within Augsburg to better serve faculty, students and staff
•
Develop a model and working relationship that better serves CGE and Augsburg
What’s not working
•
We need to better understand their concerns about risk management and liability in relationship to study
abroad in general and CGE specifically
•
The FY12 CM assessment would add 28% to CGE’s costs, which would price programs out of the market
•
No funds available for capital improvements in sites and program development/expansion
•
They want financial results from CGE like a business but don’t allow us to operate like a business
CONCERNING ASPECTS OF CGE’S
RELATIONSHIP WITH AUGSBURG
Staffing
-
Were going to lay off a staff person in Minneapolis without consulting CGE leaders
and would have impacted a key program area
-
Approval still not received for APA temp
Budget
-
All Hands Meeting announcement that goal was to increase margins for CGE
without our knowledge or input
-
Surplus expectation of $217,000 put in for CGE for FY14 budget without CGE’s
approval – accomplished by decisions by the college to not rehire staff without
CGE’s input
IF WE SEPARATE WHAT CGE WOULD REQUEST
Property
Nicaragua house – was a donated to CGE so should be given to CGE
Nica bus/truck – paid for already by CGE budget
ES van – fully paid for already through CGE budget
Guatemala van – paid for already by CGE budget
Mexico houses – paid for already by CGE budget
Mexico vans – paid for already by CGE budget
Namibia house – set up a lease agreement with Augsburg – CGE has already fully paid
$26,000? For renovation . CGE has already paid $44,446.76 in amortization of the
$333,350 original purchase price, leaving $288,904 remaining to be paid
Namibia vehicles – will be amortized in 2014 so already paid by CGE budget
Endowed scholarship and restricted funds– transfer the principle and spending accounts
to CGE
TIMELINE
Within 1 year:
•
Get clarity with Augsburg as soon as possible
•
Either rework our relationship with Augsburg or move into another scenario in that
time frame. Have approval by Jan. 1, 2014 so can feed into budget process.
•
Have a different model started with Augsburg or another institution by June 1,
2014
•
Would there be short-term costs for a transition where we would need to raise
extra funds?
RESOURCES – NONPROFITS
Incorporating as a nonprofit – http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/nonprofitresources/start-a-nonprofit
Merging as a nonprofit - http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/greatermnsummit/greater-minnesota-nonprofit-summit-handouts/13_GMNS_Keynote.pdf
Working with a fiscal agent http://www.mapfornonprofits.org/vertical/sites/%7B876C4FB8-E997-480FBF5B-AFAA0F113D9D%7D/uploads/Fiscal_Sponsorship_July_2011.pdf
RESOURCES – SCHOOL OF RECORD
Guidelines by the Forum on Education Abroad on using a school of record (SOR) to offer credit for study abroad providers:
http://www.forumea.org/SchoolofRecord.cfm
Many third party study abroad are independent organizations and only affiliated with an institution to offer credit.
Some examples:
- School for Field Studies - Boston U, Autonomous U Mexico semester program - Hampshire College, World Endeavors - Jacksonville
University
- Spanish Studies Program - If the student’s college or university requires a transcript from a U.S. degree-granting institution, this service
is provided by the Spanish Studies School of Record, Heidelberg University, in Tiffin, Ohio, for a service fee of $250.
- CET - CET and University of Virginia have cooperated for almost a decade to administer the CET Siena program. In 2011, the two parties
redefined their relationship, bringing mutually beneficial cooperation to official partnership. Currently, CET handles all nonacademic facets of the Siena program—housing, excursions, roommates, health and safety. CET also manages day-to-day
academics: class monitoring, faculty training, student academic needs. The University of Virginia serves as the program’s
“academic sponsor.” It provides academic oversight and acts as the “school of record,” administering course registration and
transcripts for program participants.
- Amizade - Amizade has an academic partnership with West Virginia University. Through that partnership, Amizade instructors propose
academic courses that meet on-campus standards for course approval and are further strengthened through their connections to
relevant community organizations, issues, and concerns. All courses and instructors are reviewed by the Amizade Executive
Director and, at WVU, the relevant department chair, the relevant dean, the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, and the
Associate Provost for International Academic Engagement. During the six years that Amizade has been partnered with West
Virginia University, WVU transcripts that students receive upon course completion have been accepted for transfer credit by
Indiana University, The University of Massachusetts, The University of Pennsylvania, The University of Southern California, The
University of Texas, and The University of Wisconsin, among scores of other institutions of higher education across the United
States. Amizade suggests that each student check with his or her university to confirm whether that university accepts transfer
credit from West Virginia University.
- U of M is the SOR for Global Links and Australearn - they have info on their website on how to get them to do that:
http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/professionals/intleducators/schoolofrecord.php
- CEA - Univ. of New Haven - http://www.gowithcea.com/educators/global-education/global-campuses/school-of-record.html