Policy Matters
Blog Home All Blogs
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.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

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 

Policies Requiring Public Review and Comment

Posted By Deborah Bartlett, Washington State University, Monday, October 11, 2021
Updated: Sunday, October 10, 2021

Meeting the Requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act


My office, Procedures, Records, and Forms (PR&F), is responsible for managing administrative policies and procedures for Washington State University (WSU). Administrative policies and procedures at a state institution like ours involve both policies and procedures that require just an internal review process and those that require internal review along with public notification and public comment.

Like all state higher education institutions, Washington state colleges and universities are regulated according to the laws passed by the legislature and by administrative rules put in place to enact applicable legislation. The federal government and each state in the U.S. have passed administrative procedures acts, which provide requirements for establishing, updating, and repealing administrative rules to enact legislation and operate federal or state agencies. In the state of Washington the laws passed by the legislature are codified in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), and the administrative rules are codified in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).

Generally, actions that will or may impact members of the public or customers are established as WAC rules. Each state of Washington agency has their own "Title" in the WAC, which the agency is responsible for establishing and updating in accordance with the requirements of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act (RCW 34.05). The act provides an exception for Washington higher education institutions to allow establishment of academic and administrative policies that involve admissions standards, academic advancement, graduation, the granting of degrees, employment relationships, and/or fiscal processes without going through a public review process.

WSU's WAC rules (WAC Title 504) include policies that affect student living groups, standards of conduct for students, student education records, health and safety regulations, facility use rules (both those involving free speech activities and those not involving free speech activities), parking and traffic regulations, board of regents meetings, practice and procedure for adjudicative hearings, library policies, course materials, public records, state environmental policy act rules, and small works contracting. Additionally, the Washington legislature recently moved responsibility for administering the state's renewable energy system incentive program from the state Department of Revenue to WSU's Energy Program, which required us to establish a new chapter of administrative rules to govern this program.

Our internal administrative policies are prepared, reviewed, and approved in accordance with our Policy on Policies (Executive Policy EP5). In accordance with RCW 34.05, the process for WAC policies, rules, and regulations involves internal administrative review and approval, public notification, and except in limited cases, public hearings, as well as adoption action by our Board of Regents. Exception: Our Regents delegated authority to the WSU President to adopt parking rules.

Due to the strict deadlines for filing public notifications, required waiting times to allow for public notification or comment at each stage of the process, and the limited number of Regents meetings available for adoption actions, a normal WAC amendment process takes about seven to eight months. Administrative determination to make changes based on public comments can add another three to six months to this length of time. We work with the state Code Reviser's Office, which is responsible for managing and publishing all proposed changes in the Washington State Register (WSR), and all adopted changes in the WAC.

When a WSU administrative unit notifies us that they want to make changes to the WACs, my office first asks for an idea of when they'd like the rules to become effective. We then work backwards to run a timeline that indicates dates for the necessary Regents' adoption action, the public hearing and filing deadlines, and the review process deadlines for the internal review and approval of the rules language. (We also include deadlines for the applicable vice president to provide notifications and materials and present the proposed changes to the Regents for applicable future action and action items.)

The WAC process requires a general summary preproposal notification statement to the public. Then in order to file the amendment proposal we must have all of the specific rules language completely prepared and approved internally up through the administrative chain of command to include the University President. The amendment proposal is presented to the Regents for adoption action after the public hearing and end of the public commenting period.

I'm sure many of you experience the need to push your reviewers to respond to policy/procedures drafts. Add in the need to complete each stage of the review process by strict deadlines in order to meet public notification filing requirements, and you'll find you really need to increase your level of "squeaky wheelness." We've found that having our legal counsel, the State Attorney General's Office—WSU Division, on our side throughout the development and review process for WACs is of great assistance with ensuring reviewer responses to WAC drafts.

WSU's WACs process was transferred to my office from our Office of Finance and Administration back in 2004. Since then we've learned a great deal about state requirements for processing such changes, as well as holding and documenting public hearings and comments. WAC processing is definitely a juggling act, with many different "balls in the air" to keep track of at the same time.

How are publicly-reviewed policies, rules, and regulations handled at your public institution? Does your administrative policies office manage this process, or do you have a separate office that facilitates these changes?

Even if you don't work for a public university or college, you might find it interesting to check into how publicly-reviewed policies and rules are managed at the state or even federal level. I know that my experiences working with WSU's WACs have made me much more aware of the strictures that all public agencies must follow in order to change their operating rules.

Tags:  adm  administrative code  administrative policies  Administrative Procedures Act  adoption  amendment  Deborah Bartlett  filing deadline  policies  policy  procedures  public  public comments  public hearing  public notification  public review  publicly-reviewed  review process  rules  timeline  WAC 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Historical View of Title IX

Posted By Lisa Biagas, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Monday, August 16, 2021

Complicated, but has a Positive Impact

The summer of 2020 was tumultuous for many reasons. Our campuses were trying to respond to increased racial tensions, managing the pandemic, and we were working hard to make changes as a result of the new Title IX regulations that would keep our campuses compliant.

The Title IX regulations that took effect on August 14, 2020, had a significant impact on the manner in which our campuses investigate and address claims of sex discrimination and harassment. Until now, there have been no binding federal regulations related to sexual harassment under Title IX, only administrative guidance issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

The new regulations expanded the requirements for Title IX grievance procedures, which required significant policy and procedure revisions, and training. Below are a few of the 2020 changes:

 

  • Narrowed the definition of sexual assault under Title IX
  • Limited the obligation to investigate complaints only to conduct that occurred in the college’s program or activity (and not to unrelated off-campus conduct)
  • Mandated response obligations of colleges (i.e., providing supportive measures)
  • Provided more detailed grievance procedures
  • Made hearings optional
  • Allowed colleges to choose what standard of evidence to use (e.g., the preponderance of evidence v. clear and convincing)
  • Required colleges to offer both parties an appeal from a determination regarding responsibility
  • Implemented an evaluative/vetting process to ensure that the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal resolution process does not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent
  • Required training for Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process

These changes were greeted with much consternation and controversy on many campuses. We have been operating under the new regulations for one year now while still navigating a global pandemic. If, for a moment, we review the Title IX guidelines through a historical lens, there is a complicated but positive impact. When you look around our campuses today, you will see a very different view than what you would have seen in the early 20th century. American society had a definite idea of what a woman's life should look like: wife, mother, homemaker. Women were generally not considered equals. They were expected to marry and raise children, not go to college. Those who did go to college were only allowed to participate in certain fields, such as teaching, nursing, home economics, child development, or social work.

Fast forward to 1972, as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX effectively leveled the playing field. Title IX prevents discrimination based on sex, ensuring that no person in the United States will be excluded from participation or from receiving benefits while pursuing an education in any program receiving federal financial assistance. In a historical context, Title IX became a triumph for women and girls who faced more gender barriers and restrictions than men. However, it is a common misconception that Title IX is for girls and women. The law actually benefits everyone, because it effectively eliminates discrimination based on gender--female, male, transgender and gender nonconforming.

It is crucial to understand different perspectives of what the August 14, 2020, regulations mean for students and the changes that campuses had to make. As stewards of education, we must ensure the best experience possible for our students, faculty, and staff. In the coming weeks, as we start the new academic year, please remain dedicated to learning about Title IX and brushing up on regulations periodically so that you can provide a safe and equitable learning environment for all who seek it. Our chapter in history depends on it.


Tags:  grievance  Lisa Biagas  procedures  regulations  sexual harassment  Title IX 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Do I Really Need a Policy and Procedure?

Posted By Brittani Brown, California State University San Marcos, Monday, May 11, 2020

Make sure your policy library has only what it needs

Organizations develop policies and procedures to guide operations and behavior.  Policies direct organizations on what needs to be done and how.  But how do we decide what policies are necessary?  As policy administrators, we are asked to write or implement a policy, and it is our responsibility to confirm that the policy accomplishes something, and that a policy is the best way to achieve success.  Organizations implement policies to avoid difficult conversations, to course-correct challenging groups, or to resolve an isolated incident that may never occur again. To avoid publishing an unnecessary policy, first, ask yourself if the issue is essential and if it needs clarification.

The importance is subjective.  As policy administrators, we must help our colleagues identify the need for a policy and procedure and determine how to include the important and most practical information for users.  We want to avoid issuing policies merely to replace difficult conversations.  For example, if a campus department wants to eliminate hard copy invoices, do we need a policy, or can we accomplish this goal with a conversation?

Complex issues need clarification.  Is your organization subject to new legislation?  We cannot expect every person in our organization to research and comprehend the law.  Policies are a mechanism to interpret, shorten, and add the “why” and “how” tailored to the organization.

Certain issues have a major impact on the readers and the organization. Personnel, financial, health, and safety are common policy topics and are easily identified as necessary policies.  However, the remaining potential policies should inform readers with clear communication

Creating policies for all topics results in overload, and people will ignore them.  Never write/implement a policy “just to have one” or “because it seems like a good idea.”  Align the policy with the strategic objectives of the organization.  Ensure the policy accomplishes something, and it will be read.  Keep the policy concise.

Tags:  brittani brown  policy  policy administration  policy management  policy process  procedures 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Let's Talk About Procedures!

Posted By Joshua Adams, Cornell University, Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Updated: Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Where do Your Procedures Live?

Throughout my years working in policy, I have found that there is one area of little agreement and great discussion—whether or not policies should contain procedures. While there may be something to be said for making a clear distinction between these two instruments of administration, they are inextricably linked to each other: most agree that a policy is not worth much if readers are not told how to “follow it,” i.e., not given procedures or constraints for compliance.

At Cornell, we decided right from the beginning that four criteria would be common to every university policy: (1) possessing broad application across the university; (2) requiring senior-level approval; (3) increasing efficiency, ensuring compliance with law or regulation, or protecting from audit; and (4) containing constraints or procedures for compliance. With that in mind, we began our policy journey, before the existence of the Internet, believing that a university policy must contain even the most granular procedures, to protect the university from any potential claims of ignorance, upon an individual’s non-compliance with policy. This, of course, yielded outlandishly long policy documents, such as our 300-plus-page “Accounting System” policy (which was, thankfully, retired many years ago).

With the advent of the Internet and in the years since, hypertext links have become ubiquitous and expected, and no employee can function without the ability to bounce around from website to website, virtually from office to office, gathering whatever information is needed to complete the task at hand. But where does that leave the policy developers, when considering what procedures to include with a policy, on behalf of the institution? And who takes the responsibility to issue, maintain, and update these various items as needed? I imagine the answers would be wildly varied, and I doubt there is a single institution that would any longer champion the “tomes of yore.”

Cornell’s solution has been a gradual reduction in the number and complexity of procedures contained in official university policies, opting for a more distributed approach, to the point now where most “how to” instructions are housed on sites within their respective administrative areas. But our policies still are required to contain at least a short overview of procedures, with information on how to obtain the minutest of procedural details, on an office website or through other means. We accomplish this balance of completeness with brevity during the policy’s development, or during an existing policy’s periodic review. The balance here, and likely at your institution, depends upon the relative resources available, the complexity and length of the procedures, and an assessment, through judgment, discovery, and analytics, as to the most logical place for the user to look.

Perhaps your institution has a different solution, maybe even to the point that your policy function is not responsible for the maintenance of any procedures at all. However, it is a worthy exercise for institutions to consider these aspects of policy management. I’ll close my post with a battery of questions, designed to elicit opinions and spur discussion. There are no wrong answers.

  • Do your policies contain procedures for compliance? If not, do they point clearly to the location of the procedures?
  • Who owns procedures, and who is responsible for updating them?
  • Does your policy process include the development of procedures?
  • What resources are available to your policy initiative, and is it realistic to expect procedures to be developed through the same system? …and for the central policy library to be the place to house procedures?
  • If procedures are housed outside of your institution’s policy initiative, how does your institution ensure that procedures are kept up-to-date and linked to policies?
  • Do you have separate templates for your policies and your procedures? If not, would this be an effective way to develop policies at your institution? If so, would it be effective to combine them into one template?
  • If your institution’s policies contain any procedures, are minor changes to procedural elements of your policies required to pass through your entire policy process?

Tags:  policy process  procedures  template 

PermalinkComments (2)