Policy Matters

Administered by the Blog Committee, Policy Matters posts are written by members on a variety of topics. From think pieces to how-to's, editorials to news round-ups, there is something for every policy administrator. Interested in contributing a post? Let us know by emailing admin@acupa.org.

Top tags: policy policy development Policy Administration Jessica Teets policy process collaboration Deborah Bartlett pandemic accessibility COVID-19 Jennifer Gallagher Gina Kennedy writing ACUPA data equity IT Productivity remote work How-to Lisa Biagas news resources Sara Gigeroff students AI change compliance culture free speech

Linguists in Policy

Posted By Olivia Welsh, student, UNC - Chapel Hill, Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Updated: Wednesday, March 19, 2025

The Underrated Role of Understanding Language

Rules for policy writing, like the training and resources offered by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC-Chapel Hill) Policy Office, are helpful tools to improve the overall accessibility and utility of policies. However, as is true in almost all fields, rules have their limits. It never makes sense to apply the same rules to every piece of policy writing. Policy writers need to consider how language furthers their policy goals and institutional values. In order to understand when the “rules” are useful and when they should be ignored, policy writers and editors need to be familiar with why guidelines are given. Fortunately, this is exactly the type of question linguists study: how does human cognition interact with language, and how can that information be used? From this perspective, policy administrators can better examine and justify writing and editing decisions. This is illustrated by looking at a few examples of common policy-editing rules.

Rule: Remove Barrier Language

One of the most obvious changes in updated policy language is the removal of marginalizing or otherwise exclusionary words. This includes gendered terminology, non-preferred labels, or unnecessarily limited categories (e.g., outdated country names, normative descriptors). Generally, though not always, this rule of using inclusive language is conceptually understood – why be exclusive when you could be inclusive? Still, it can seem trivial for organizations to devote resources to combing through old policies, looking for violations of inclusivity rules and making tiny changes. The field of sociolinguistics provides a lot of evidence that this investment is actually not trivial at all.

For example, the use of gendered terminology triggers mental concepts of gender categories, making gendered stereotypes more accessible in the mind. This unconscious process has very real consequences on behavior. When masculine forms are used as “neutral” (e.g., “mankind”), it promotes stereotypes that male is the default, expected category – making those who do not identify as male feel less suited to the environment. A 2021 study of adults in Israel demonstrated that addressing women with masculine (neutral usage for Hebrew) pronouns in online math testing resulted in poorer performance, whereas feminine testing language reduced the gender achievement gap by one-third. The converse held for men, who performed worse when addressed in the feminine. Furthermore, both genders exhibited more effort (measured in time) when taking a test with language corresponding to their gender identity (Kricheli-Katz & Regev, 2021). The use of gendered language influenced the perception of the “prototypical test-taker,” making those of a gender not addressed directly in the test’s language feel alienated from the field of mathematics. The simple act of changing pronouns to be properly inclusive significantly improved test-takers’ attitudes and achievement.

In Sweden, a gender-neutral pronoun was officially incorporated into their language in 2015. This faced backlash, being criticized as a performative action of “political correctness” with little tangible impact (Tavits & Pérez, 2019). Yet experiments here again reveal that gender-neutral pronoun use weakens people’s bias favoring men, and that this reduced salience of masculinity promotes more equal attitudes towards women and members of the LGBTQ+ community. This was displayed in more positive attitudes toward female politicians and less hostility towards LGBTQ+ individuals, and more support for policies that benefit both groups (Tavitz & Pérez, 2019).

These results should be hugely important in the world of higher education policy and administration. The purported goal of education is to promote opportunity without discrimination. By this standard, it is problematic to use language in policies that makes certain groups or individuals feel alienated because this negatively impacts their academic performance and undermines their sense of belonging in the institutional setting. As such, removing barrier language is not about “following the rules” just because they exist, but about recognizing the very real impacts that language has on behavior and ensuring that the attitudes of an institution are represented correctly in policy. As language continuously evolves and preferred, maximally inclusive language changes, a review that is sensitive to the realities of how policy language impacts people is an essential tool.

Rule: Avoid Negative Statements

Looking at more technical elements of policy review guidelines, let’s consider the long-promoted practice of avoiding negative statements. Or, to state the rule more simply: no negative statements. Interestingly, this rule is clearer when stated in a way that violates the rule itself. So why is it such a common recommendation for clear writing?

Traditionally, proponents of avoiding negative statements in policy cite processing difficulties and assert that telling people what to do is more helpful than telling them what not to do. It’s not that these ideas are “wrong.” However, linguistic evidence reveals a more complicated picture than any rule could account for.

In some regards, the “no negative statements” rule has obvious applicability. If a policy intends to have employees submit paperwork to the Human Resources department, saying “submit paperwork to the Human Resources department” is more informative and useful than saying “do not submit paperwork to the Finance department.” A rule to avoid negative statements helps ensure actionable policy statements. Some statements, however, have equally informative positive and negative versions (when they refer to a binary). Still, negative statements have been found to be more cognitively demanding than positive statements (Agmon et al., 2022). This phenomenon is demonstrated in simple experiments measuring reaction time in verification tasks of statements like “the square is blue” and negated statements like “the square is not blue.” The delay of task completion for negative sentences can sometimes be attributed to processing cost (for example, some linguistic theorists posit that double-processing is necessary for negation: first processing a situation to then be able to process its negation). Negation also has a verification cost, which is an additional effort to determine the truth value of a negative sentence (Agmon et al., 2022). Another concern is that negation often increases structural complexity by requiring the addition of auxiliary verbs (e.g., in a sentence like “The student reads,” negation requires the addition of the auxiliary verb “do,” in the form “The student does not read”). Difficulties can also arise from a pragmatic perspective, since readers find negation to be strange if the specific context does not invoke it. In other words, if there is no expectation of some positive statement, it is hard for readers to determine the relevance of its negation (Nordmeyer & Frank, 2014). As such, policies that include negative statements carry a contextual burden that may be lessened by avoiding negative statements.

At the same time, there are cases where a negation is processed faster than an affirmative, which is particularly true of “real-world” language use compared to artificial research contexts (Orenes, 2021). Eye-tracking studies have demonstrated that participants quickly fixate on a negative phrase corresponding to a statement they heard without first fixating on the non-negative version. This is evidence for a more immediate integration of negation, contrary to the double-processing theory (Orenes, 2021). As it turns out, both slower and faster processing of negative versus affirmative statements can be true. In comprehending language, people are fast to represent an explicit negation but slower to process an affirmative alternate (Orenes, 2021). The policy implication here is that avoiding negatives is counterproductive if the goal of a policy statement is centrally to avoid some behavior. People are quite adept at integrating meaning for explicit negation. However, issues arise when understanding the explicit negative is insufficient for the given context, and readers have to mentally represent some affirmative that is not explicitly stated. Effective policy writers exhibit flexibility in applying the “no negation rule,” in accordance with principles of cognition.

Rule: Eliminate Passive Voice

There is a similar nuance to consider for eliminating passive voice. This rule has been taught in schools for ages. Passive voice is said to be the enemy of clarity. A passive sentence, such as “The book was read,” provides no insight into the sentence’s subject. This leaves the sentence vulnerable to multiple interpretations (one could assume, as we might in our office, that the book was read “by zombies”). Linguists grate against the idea of banning passive voice, however, because the simple fact that native speakers opt for passive voice when they speak and write indicates that it is a valuable practice. Passive voice is socially useful (e.g., to avoid placing blame), but it is also useful for topicalizing some part of a sentence to focus attention. For example, in the sentence, “Millions of people read the book,” the focal point is the subject (people). If I want the attention to be on the book, passive voice facilitates its topicalization: “The book was read by millions of people.”

In the world of policy, using passive voice to obscure a subject is resoundingly problematic. Policies are meant to be instructive, so it needs to be explicitly known who is meant to be doing what (rarely is it meant to be zombies). In this regard, the “eliminate passive voice” rule makes sense. Another good reason to eliminate passive voice in policy is that passive sentences increase the processing load for the reader. Passive sentences cause a delay in resolution; readers have to search for the subject and then connect it to the rest of the statement. Generally, the sentence “Sam ate an apple” is easier to process than “An apple was eaten by Sam.”

Still, there may be cases in policy where avoiding passive voice introduces more problems than it solves. Sometimes, avoiding passive voice becomes cumbersome, like when there are several potential actors, or if some object is the actual focal point of a statement. This is where it is essential to stay focused on the policy’s goals. A policy produced by student services might discuss a form that students need to submit, and then provide a timeline for request approval: “The form will be reviewed within 10 business days.” If the policy is designed to be student-facing, who reviews the form is not particularly important. If it is simple to indicate the subject (e.g., “The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will review the form within 10 business days”), that is probably best practice to promote accountability. However, the form may not have a single, definable reviewer. A student reading the policy will be more burdened by an explanation of all the potential reviewers than by the processing load of not being able to find a subject for the sentence. Only by understanding why “eliminate passive voice” is a rule can a policy writer be equipped to compare the difficulty introduced by passive voice to the difficulty introduced by avoiding it.

This sensitivity to how artificial rules for writing can contradict natural human language use is why a linguistic background is highly valuable in a policy environment. Policy review guidelines, like UNC-Chapel Hill’s, are a useful starting point, but policy writers will inevitably encounter situations where the rules become cumbersome. In these cases, understanding the cognitive basis for writing recommendations is essential to making the best policy language decisions.

References

Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2022). Negative sentences exhibit a sustained effect in delayed verification tasks. In Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (Vol. 48, pp. 122–141). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001059

Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics. (2003). Guidelines for inclusive language. Linguistic Society of America. https://www.lsadc.org/guidelines_for_inclusive_language

Kricheli-Katz, T., & Regev, T. (2021). The effect of language on performance: do gendered languages fail women in maths? Npj Science of Learning, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00087-7

Nordmeyer, A.E., & Frank, M.C. (2014). A pragmatic account of the processing of negative sentences. Cognitive Science, 36. https://langcog.stanford.edu/papers/NF-cogsci2014.pdf

Orenes, I. (2021). "Looking at" Negation: Faster Processing for Symbolic Rather Than Iconic Representations. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 50(6), 1417–1436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09797-w

Tavits, M., & Pérez, E. O. (2019). Language influences mass opinion toward gender and LGBT equality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16781–16786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908156116

Tags: equity audit equity review guidelines improvement language policy writing writing

Share |

Permalink

The Policy Whisperer

Posted By Gina Kennedy, NOSM University, Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Updated: Monday, July 15, 2024

Building a Collaborative University Culture

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of ACUPA or NOSM University.

Welcome to the ever-changing world of university governance, where policy development meets cultural alchemy, and every decision is both a strategic move and a playful dance. As a governance professional, you hold the magic wand that can shape the very culture of your institution. In this blog, we’ll explore the delightful intricacies of policy culture, the significance of understanding your institution's unique ethos, and the tools at your disposal to craft policies that foster an inclusive and collaborative environment.

Policy Culture: More Than Just Words on Paper

When we talk about "policy culture," we’re diving into the collective mindset and behaviors that influence how policies are created, implemented, and perceived. Think of policy culture as the secret sauce that flavors every decision and action within the university. It's not just about the rules themselves but the spirit in which they are embraced.

Shaping the Culture You Want and Need

To shape the policy culture your organization needs, start by understanding the current cultural landscape. Is your university a haven for innovation, or does it cling to tradition like a cat to a warm laptop? By recognizing these traits, you can craft policies that resonate and inspire. Remember, policies should not be seen as rigid commandments but as living documents that evolve with the institution.

Guiding Documents and Tools

As a governance or policy professional, you’re not navigating this journey alone. You have an arsenal of guiding documents, tools and people!

Policy Frameworks: These provide the backbone for developing coherent and consistent policies. They ensure that every policy aligns with the university’s mission and values.
Consultation Processes: Engage with stakeholders across the university. From faculty and students to the board and senate, inclusive consultation fosters buy-in and enriches policy development.
Feedback Mechanisms: Implement systems to gather ongoing feedback on policies. This helps in refining them and keeping them relevant.
People: Your greatest asset is the people involved in the policy process. Build a network of policy champions across the university who can advocate for and help implement new policies. These individuals, ranging from faculty and staff to students and board members, bring diverse perspectives and drive cultural change through their everyday interactions and influence.

The Cultural Compass: Why Understanding Culture is Crucial

Understanding the culture of your institution is akin to having a reliable compass; it guides every step of the policy cycle. Culture impacts how policies are received, interpreted, and enacted. A policy that thrives in one university might flounder in another due to differing cultural contexts.

The Inclusion Imperative

In today’s world, inclusivity isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a necessity. An inclusive culture ensures that diverse voices are heard and valued, leading to richer and more effective policies. Here’s how to proactively create an inclusive culture:

Broad-Based Engagement: Include a wide array of perspectives in policy discussions. This includes staff, faculty, students, and the board or senate.
Cultural Competency Training: Equip everyone involved in policy development with the skills to understand and appreciate diversity.
Transparent Communication: Maintain open channels of communication where individuals feel safe to express their views and ensure that the message is being received – which means you may have to use different methods to achieve your purpose – be open to variety.

The Role of Governance Professionals

Your role is to act as a bridge, connecting various groups within the university to ensure that policies are inclusive and reflective of the institution’s values. Think of yourself as the university’s cultural gardener, planting seeds of inclusivity and collaboration that will bloom into robust policies.

Tools for a Collaborative Policy Culture

Creating a strong and collaborative policy culture is like assembling a well-coordinated orchestra. Here are some practical suggestions to support this harmonious environment:

Policy Management Software: Invest in technology that simplifies policy creation, distribution, and tracking. This ensures that everyone is on the same page and that policies are easily accessible.
Workshops and Training: Regularly conduct workshops to educate stakeholders on policy processes and their roles. This fosters a sense of ownership and accountability.
Pilot Programs: Before rolling out new policies, run pilot programs to test their effectiveness and gather feedback. This iterative approach leads to more refined and accepted policies.
Celebrating Successes: Recognize and celebrate the successful implementation of policies. This reinforces positive behavior and highlights the value of collaborative efforts.

In Conclusion

Navigating the world of policy development in a university setting is both an art and a science. By understanding the cultural underpinnings of your institution, promoting inclusivity, and leveraging the right tools, you can craft policies that not only guide but also inspire. Together, let’s cultivate a vibrant, inclusive, and collaborative university culture!

Tags: campus culture culture Gina Kennedy Policy Writing stakeholders

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Escaping the Meeting Mayhem

Posted By Gina Kennedy, NOSM University , Monday, December 11, 2023
Updated: Sunday, December 10, 2023

A Holiday Wishlist for Less Meeting Mayhem

'Tis the season for joy, cocoa…and for policy administrators, a merry juggling act between managing policies, deciphering new laws, and reflecting on the year’s endeavors. The past few years feel like the Grinch made off with our precious time, leaving us in virtual meetings.

If your holiday wish list includes fewer meetings and more sanity, you're not alone! Let's unwrap the gift of time by tackling the addiction to meetings.

The Meeting Epidemic: A Festive Overload

Picture this: a conference room adorned with tinsel, where meetings drag on longer than Northern Ontario winters. In many organizations, it's a struggle to find time for 'real' work amidst the sea of meetings and endless video calls.

Gina-Santa’s Other Elf’s Six Questions to Rescue Your Schedule

Do We Need This Meeting, or Is It Just a Mistletoe Misunderstanding?

Sometimes, meetings happen out of habit or tradition, much like your Uncle Bob's annual reenactment of 'A Christmas Carol.' Pause and reconsider the necessity.

Can We Combine It with Others, Like a Potluck Feast?

Just as cranberry sauce pairs well with turkey, some meetings might blend harmoniously. Merge those agendas and save time for everyone!

Can It Happen Less Frequently, Like Reindeer Appearances?

Not every meeting needs to be a weekly occurrence. Embrace the magic of spacing them out to keep the holiday spirit alive.

Can We Do It in Less Time, like a Speed-Wrapped Present or a Gift Bag Express?

Challenge yourself to trim the meeting fat. Set a timer—get your point across before Rudolph finishes his annual flight.

Can Fewer People Attend, Keeping It Cozy?

Just like a snug fireside chat, not everyone needs a seat at every meeting. Invite only those who truly need to be there.

How Can We Manage It Better, Like Santa's Workshop?

Elves have their systems down—let's learn from them. Streamline agendas, set clear objectives, and be as efficient as Santa on Christmas Eve.

Conclusion: Unwrapping the Gift of Time

This holiday season let's gift ourselves, and others, the present of fewer, better-managed meetings. And to our beloved policy administrators tirelessly ensuring order in this festive chaos—take a break, too! Even elves pause for hot cocoa. By reevaluating our meeting habits and giving our hardworking teams the gift of time, we can sleigh the holiday season with efficiency and joy. If you are looking for a good relaxing read, check out the last blog post by Sara Gigeroff, University of New Brunswick Reigniting Professional Passions through Policy Related Professional Development.

And that’s a wrap! Thank you to my ACUPA colleagues for a wonderful year of knowledge and sharing.

Tags: Gina Kennedy Holiday Policy Policy Cycle Policy Development Policy Drafting Policy Implementation Policy matters Policy Writing Process Professional Development Sara Gigeroff Time management

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Reigniting Professional Passions Through Policy-Related Professional Development

Posted By Sara Gigeroff, University of New Brunswick, Monday, November 13, 2023
Updated: Monday, November 13, 2023

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the association or post-secondary institution. The author does not receive any financial incentive for purchases made through the links included in this post.

Seeking Specialized Skills

I often identify myself as a keen continuous learner, and when I start to feel stuck or bored, I tend to look for learning opportunities or new hobbies. When I wrote What’s in your Policy Closet earlier this year, I was at a point in my career where I wanted and needed more professionally. In December 2022, that stuck feeling led to seeking out professional development opportunities and resources that could help expand my skillset and reignite the passion I had for my job, while preparing to request a reclassification. I had previously attempted to seek out policy-specific learning opportunities, but quickly realized those types of experiences were few and far between.

Reigniting Professional Passions

In more recent searches for relevant materials and webinars, I somehow stumbled upon an international bestselling book by Perfect Policies founder Lewis S. Eisen titled Rules: A Guide to Drafting Respectful Policies and Directives. The book arrived during the first week of January, and was a good reminder that policies need to be drafted with clarity and respect, while assuming positive intent from those who fall under them, as well as the importance of avoiding the parent-child dynamic in policy writing. While reading, I thought to myself, “he gets it,” and felt reassured that I was developing policies in a good way.

Inspired by Lewis’ writing, I found myself scouring the internet for other materials, opinion pieces, articles, and learning opportunities that he offered. In an opinion piece published in 2021, he wrote “ Drafting policies and directives is not rocket science, but it does require specific knowledge and skills that must be deliberately acquired,” and that really resonated with me because it wasn’t until I discovered ACUPA that I was able to connect with other policy professionals and could tap into policy-specific learning opportunities.

Having connected with Lewis via LinkedIn, I learned that he had developed a virtual workshop on Advanced Policy Drafting Techniques, and having recently had the pleasure of attending that workshop, I wanted to share a few key takeaways from those sessions, such as values-based policy drafting, a quick way to ensure respectful wording, and the place for plain language. I have also provided other resources that I have found helpful throughout my policy career.

Virtual Learning

One of my favorite things about attending any professional development opportunity is the broad experience that participants bring to the classroom, especially in virtual settings where contributors are often distributed across the globe. Policy-specific professional development opportunities almost always have to be very deliberately sought out, which means that going into any learning opportunities, I know I am going to be surrounded by other keen policy professionals at different stages in their careers and from different employment settings. I’ve had wonderful discussions with people from the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, just to name a few, who have held positions in academia, non-profit, government, and other employment settings. Discussions with fellow attendees and course instructors, as well as meetings with ACUPA members, always leave me feeling inspired and ready to get back to work. I would encourage anyone feeling stuck to spend some time expanding their professional community and learning from people with different perspectives and worldviews.

Values-Based Policy Drafting

Regardless of your geographic location and work environment, the establishment where you work likely has a mission statement, values, and goals. When drafting a policy, it is important to have your institution’s values in mind and be able to tie the policy to those values. Although this may seem like common sense and is something I have in the back of my mind, I realized when it was being presented by Lewis that I do not deliberately consider how a policy relates to the values of my place of employment during the proposal or drafting stages. I draft with clarity and respect, try to assume positive intent from all employees, and avoid the parent-child dynamic as best I can, but there is so much more to the policy cycle, a lot of which requires buy-in and collaboration.

Positive Positioning

When people hear policy, they usually think of rules, and immediately want to push back because they don’t want to be told what to do. As the authority drafting or revising the policy, it is important to know how that policy, or changes to it, could impact the values of an institution. Connecting a new policy, or changes to an old policy, to the company or institution’s values helps with optics, and more importantly, helps to gain buy-in from others, especially from senior leadership and potential collaborators. In being able to state, “this policy aligns or supports values X, Y, and Z, by . . .” and “this policy will achieve X, Y, and Z, by . . .” the policy itself, or revisions, become attached to goals rather than rules, and are automatically viewed in a more positive light. Illustrating how someone or something specific fits into a policy or strategic document, and how it can benefit them, is an important part of the consultation process.

Re-Introducing Respect

Lewis’ book and workshops focus on the importance of clarity, conciseness, and respectful wording, which means removing the underlying assumption of a parent-child dynamic from policies. We first learn about rules as children, and those rules are set by adults. What we took away from that experience is that all rules need to sound like that, but policies are written by adults and for adults, so they need to be written in a way that makes others want to adhere to them. This means employing an approachable tone and removing words like must, may (a blunted must unless representing a possibility), many, and should (which represents a recommendation rather than a rule) from your policy vocabulary. Simply removing these terms will change the tone of your policy from condescending to respectful, and sets rules that people are more willing to follow.

Make it a Manual

How often do you find yourself thinking or saying, “no one is reading/following this policy?” Another significant takeaway related to language and terminology from Lewis’ workshop was the idea of who needs to read and understand the policies we write. The short answer is relevant policy professionals, specialists, and those with authority over the policy. As policy professionals, many of us have adapted to using plain language, but have you ever considered that by using plain language in policy, your directive may become murky or lost completely? Policies are, after all, for use by specialists (like us), and those with authority over them. This means that policies can and should often contain jargon and technical terms because they are necessary for clarity. Non-experts, on the other hand, require good guidance documents. Lewis suggests thinking of the guidance documents as a pamphlet; an office or unit-specific manual for employees to reference that tells them everything they need to know, with hyperlinks to other relevant documents. Although these additional guidance documents take time to develop, I would argue that they are a valuable resource that could lead to increased awareness and compliance within offices.

Never Stop Networking

If you’re feeling stuck, losing your passion for policy, or are seeking more from your career, I highly recommend attending events and professional development opportunities. A great place to gain new policy knowledge is through expanding your network by connecting with ACUPA colleagues and becoming more involved with the association by joining a committee, attending the annual conference, and taking advantage of the many continuous learning opportunities available to you.

Another way to expand your skills and participate in sessions with like-minded policy professionals is by searching regularly for experiences available through Eventbrite. This is a great way to find hidden gems! Earlier this month, I participated in an interactive session on policy change. The workshop was marketed as “a fun and quirky journey through the science of policy change - with pop culture references to really nerd out together,” and it was such a unique, fun way to learn and discuss policy concepts with individuals from across the world. It also provided me with new LinkedIn connections and relevant examples that I can use to discuss policy with my colleagues who don’t necessarily understand what I do and why policy is important.

Along with attending and participating in opportunities available via Eventbrite, I have also recently discovered a site called Apolitical that has some great resources. Though geared towards government and public servants, the policymaking learning opportunities available through Apolitical, such as free and for-fee courses, articles, and events, are valuable regardless of the setting you work in and where you are in your career as a policy professional.

Educational Opportunities Recommended by Sara:

Drafting Policies for Maximum Engagement (available for a fee, next offered in February 2024)

An Introduction to Policymaking (online, free)

Stakeholder Engagement 101 (online, free)

Silo-Busting for Public Servants (online, free)

Certificate in Policy Development and Implementation (online, available for a fee)

Eventbrite (online, free/available for a fee)

Additional Resources Suggested by Sara:

Rules: A Guide to Drafting Respectful Policies and Directives

How to Write Effective Policies and Procedures: The System that Makes the Process of Developing Policies and Procedures Easy

Become A Procedures Pro: The Admin's Guide to Developing Effective Office Systems and Procedures

Articles by Lewis S. Eisen