A case study from Concordia University of Edmonton

Rethinking a familiar governance tool

Committees that support policy development and review go by many names—coordination committees, oversight committees, policy advisory groups—but their purpose is essentially the same: to bring an institution-wide lens to policy work. At Concordia University of Edmonton (CUE), we created a committee model that fits our size, culture, and governance structure, but had to work through some of the common problems these committees can encounter. Those pains ultimately helped us rethink our approach so the committee could continue doing meaningful work rather than becoming redundant. While every institution is unique (and some opt out of having such committees entirely), our experience may offer a few helpful insights for anyone considering establishing one or contemplating a refresh.

When these committees work well, they centralize oversight, identify gaps, and bring together diverse perspectives, strengthening clarity, coherence, and risk awareness across policy documents. But they can also struggle when mandates grow too broad, overlap with existing roles, or lack shared standards for what makes a “good” policy. When this happens, committees can become overloaded and unclear in their purpose. In some cases, institutions may dissolve the committee and shift responsibility to an executive committee or legal counsel, resulting in a more centralized, leadership-driven decision-making structure rather than a broadly collaborative one.

Yet the value of policy advisory committees, in my view, remains strong. When challenges arise, one option is to shift the committee’s focus, which is exactly what we did at CUE. This case study explores how we made that shift, moving from a coordination-focused model to a streamlined committee dedicated to policy document review grounded in clear institutional standards, transparent processes, and a sustainable mandate.

The need for a new approach

When I stepped into the role of policy and records analyst at CUE, our Policy Coordination Committee had already been playing a central and valuable role in the institution’s policy work. Like other policy advisory bodies, the committee reviewed policies for consistency, managed the policy review cycle, identified potential gaps, and provided institution-wide policy coordination. This structure was especially beneficial during the early stages of CUE’s policy program, when the committee helped guide major foundational projects that established several university policies.

As CUE grew, we began to see signs that the committee’s original model no longer aligned with the needs of our policy environment. Three insights, in particular, stood out:

1. Once its major foundation projects were completed, the committee struggled to define its ongoing purpose. The committee’s role in policy coordination no longer fit the reality of our policy environment.
2. The committee’s responsibilities increasingly overlapped with my role as a policy administrator. This created duplication and a lack of clarity when it came to workflows.
3. There was no documented standard for what constitutes a “good” policy. Committee discussions were often based on subjective interpretation rather than a shared standard.

As we examined the committee’s evolving role, it became clear that its coordination functions had become redundant. This insight prompted CUE to revise the committee’s terms of reference and formally establish the Policy Review Committee—a dedicated body responsible for reviewing all policy documents in line with clear institutional standards.

To support transparency and consistency, we also developed the Policy Document Checklist, which outlines the three standards for good policy design that CUE has adopted:

• Be clear: Policies are written in plain language, with short and simple sentences expressing a single idea, logical organization, and definitions aligned with standard institutional terminology.
• Be concise: Policies contain only rules with additional information moved to guidance documents. They are broad, enduring, and aligned with authorities.
• Be helpful: Policy documents use a positive and respectful tone, include enforceable statements, use inclusive terminology, and show evidence of meaningful engagement with the CUE community.

These statements now guide every policy document’s development and review. They are shared early with policy developers as a resource in the Policy Developers’ Toolkit, ensuring transparency, consistency, and a smoother review experience. By the time policy documents reach committee review, policy developers already know exactly what the committee will assess.

Practical tips for establishing a Policy Review Committee

If you are thinking of reconfiguring an existing committee or establishing a new one, here are some practices that worked for us:

1. Select members based on competencies. Ensure members have interest and experience in policy, not just positional representation.
2. Keep membership small and nimble. Our committee currently includes five members appointed from the major organizational units of the university. Because policy consultation is expected to occur before a policy reaches the committee, the committee itself does not need broad, university-wide representation.
3. Establish clear, shared standards. Tools such as our Policy Document Checklist give the committee a common reference point and help members ask focused, meaningful questions.
4. Invite policy developers to participate. We begin meetings with a discussion among committee members, then invite the policy developer to hear feedback directly and respond to questions. This approach strengthens understanding and reduces back-and-forth.
   
5. Prioritize committee orientation. Our first meeting each year is dedicated entirely to orientation. We review the standards, work through examples, and practice applying the criteria. This practice builds shared literacy and helps maintain consistency across membership transitions.

Reimagining our committee structure allowed us to build a model that fits CUE’s size, governance needs, and culture, but it is just one possible approach. Because institutions vary widely, policy practices should remain adaptable. In our case, a key strength of the Policy Review Committee is its direct connection with the policy developer, which has revealed an important reality: policy review can feel intimidating, especially for new drafters. For this reason, committees should not only focus on creating an effective structure but also be intentional about fostering spaces that are respectful and supportive.

Ultimately, policy work is human. Approaching review with thoughtfulness, professionalism, and collaboration makes the process constructive and rewarding for everyone involved and helps build trust, foster shared understanding, and strengthen our sense of community.