Unit-level policies may have a greater day-to-day impact on individuals than administrative policies.

How our unit-level support evolved.

A simple favor—or two

Favor #1: Reviewing a unit's policy manual

Favor #2: Teaching policy review through an equity lens

Unexpected but, perhaps, unavoidable

The systems and standards that made expansion possible.

Managing intake and onboarding units

The next and most important operational step was to figure out how to manage intake deliberately. Before agreeing to onboard a unit, the central policy program needed enough information to understand the scope of work, establish responsibilities, and anticipate costs.

Our essential onboarding requirements became:

• A clear policy administrator. A designated policy administrator who can secure approvals, gather documents, answer questions, and coordinate technical setup.
• Leadership approval. Confirmed support from unit leadership.
• Numbers. Reliable estimates of the number of documents and workflow participants, since both affect system costs and configuration.
• Understanding established structures. An established review structure—or a willingness to create one—including approval roles, workflows, and any established document templates.

Once we identified the information we needed, we developed a standardized onboarding process:

1. Receive a Unit Onboarding Request Form (a Microsoft Form that captures most of the essential information)
2. Meet with the unit to fill information gaps and provide a high-level overview of the system.
3. Obtain any outstanding approvals and foundational information.
4. Build sample templates and workflows in the system.
5. Train the policy administrator to recreate and manage those structures independently— “Teach them how to fish.”
6. Finalize the setup, step back, and remain available for targeted support.

Meeting units where they are

Today, divisions, colleges, and administrative offices use Clemson’s policy management system and program resources to develop and maintain all types of governing documents. Unit-level content now represents more than half of the documents in the system, and interest continues to grow.

Most of these documents are available only through single sign-on, so the scale of this work is not always visible. But conversations with the policy administrators who use the system make its value clear. Published resources and access to live support give them structure without requiring the central program to manage every step.

Unit-level policy work also offers centralized policy administrators the chance to peek into the daily lives of colleagues across the institution. It reveals the many specialized tasks, risks, and responsibilities that keep a university operating—and it reminds us that effective policy must work for the people expected to use it.

What’s next for our program?

The next phase of this expansion may be more technical: mapping regulations across policies regardless of level, connecting Administrative and unit-level documents behind the scenes, and creating customized unit policy pages (no promises). For now, simply offering scalable tools and removing unnecessary barriers to the system has strengthened governance at Clemson and made it easier for individuals to find and understand how to do the right thing.

Expand your policy program

You do not need a large team or a technical policy management system to begin supporting unit-level policy work. Start small, make your existing resources easier to reuse, and give units permission to adapt them within clear boundaries.

1. Build scalable resources. Create templates, definitions, workflows, review schedules, and writing standards that units can understand and reuse. Explain not only how the resources work, but why they were designed that way.
2. Set the floor. Identify the minimum requirements that apply to every policy, regardless of level—for example, accessibility, clear ownership, accountability, and revision history.
3. Decide where you can give up control. Be explicit about what is flexible and where the central program can exit the process. Consider if a unit must use the central program’s exact template or if its own format captures the required elements. Decide who can publish content to the public website.
4. Define your must-haves. Before expanding support, identify what information you need from a unit to successfully support them and anything that might affect program costs (if applicable).
5. Streamline intake and transition. Use a form, project-management tool, or documented workflow so everyone understands how to get started, what support the central program provides, and when ownership transfers to the unit.
6. Protect your bandwidth. Pilot the approach with one enthusiastic unit, learn from the experience, and adjust. Or consider onboarding units at set times of year and training them in cohorts.

Your program may stop after #2. That is still providing meaningful support! Small, intentional actions can have a significant impact when they help units write clearer policies, manage them consistently, and connect policy to the people doing the work.

An Opinion Piece by Cheryle D. Snead-Greene, Prairie View A&M University

Most of us have opinions about generative AI in higher education. And if we’re honest, those opinions usually reflect where we sit day to day—whether that’s in the classroom, in research, or in the work that keeps a university running behind the scenes.

Recently, I served on a university task force charged with drafting an AI policy. I went in thinking it would be fairly straightforward: gather best practices, draft clear language, move on. That assumption didn’t last long. What we ran into was far more complicated than expected. We were trying to bring some order to something evolving quickly, and not always in predictable ways. And some of it, frankly, we’re still figuring out.

The urgency isn’t hypothetical.

AI isn’t “coming” anymore. It’s already here.

Students are using it to draft assignments, generate ideas, and study. Faculty are experimenting with it in their teaching or wrestling with what it means for authorship, learning, and integrity. Administrators are looking at whether it can make advising, communication, and operations work better. There’s no waiting for perfect clarity. The pressure to respond with guidance is already here; on our campus, students, faculty, and administrators are pushing in-house policymakers to set clear expectations and define boundaries across the institution.

Our task force approached the work the way many do. We looked at peer institutions. Reviewed emerging guidance. Drafted language that tried to balance innovation with responsibility. Then we revised it. And revised it again. Still, we kept running into the same issue: no single policy can fully capture the reality of how AI shows up across a university.

Here’s the issue: “AI Use” isn’t one thing.

It became clear early in our discussions that we often talk about AI use as if it were a single category, but in practice, it varies widely depending on the application.

In the classroom, for example, AI can support learning by helping students brainstorm, organize ideas, or revise drafts. Many faculty are open to that, as long as expectations for how AI will be used in the classroom are clear. But classrooms are also where academic integrity really gets tested. Students have to know what’s allowed, what isn’t, and where the line is drawn. What works in one discipline might not make sense in another. That was one of the clearest signals for us. A central policy can’t (and shouldn’t) try to manage every instructional decision. It can set expectations, but it has to leave room for professional judgment.

Research brings a different kind of complexity. AI can speed up analysis, support writing, and even help generate ideas. That can be useful, but it also raises harder questions. Who is the author? What counts as original work? What happens when something looks polished and convincing, but turns out to be wrong? We had to think through issues like copyright, sponsor requirements, and research integrity. One thing we kept coming back to is that responsibility doesn’t shift to the tool. Researchers are still accountable for what they use, what they check, and what they publish.

There’s also the added layer of sensitive data. When human subjects or restricted information are involved, AI use moves into compliance territory. That can mean approvals, security reviews, and alignment with specific rules depending on the project. At that point, a single, catch-all policy just doesn’t work.

Administrative use isn’t simple either. The conversation didn’t stop with teaching and research.

We looked at how AI might support advising, scheduling, and communication. And yes, there’s real potential there. But even in these areas, there’s a balance to manage. Efficiency matters—but so do accuracy, fairness, and compliance. Privacy came up repeatedly. We drew clear boundaries around using sensitive data in AI systems without proper review. That includes student records, health information, employee data, and proprietary research.

Across all of this, the tension was pretty consistent, and the stakes were high on both sides. Too many restrictions slow things down. Too few create real risk.

Where things start to get messy

It didn’t take long to notice a pattern. AI touches teaching, research, and administration in very different ways, so some friction–especially disagreements about expectations and boundaries–was unavoidable. Even when we tried to keep the policy grounded in broad principles like transparency, accountability, and responsible use, we kept running into tradeoffs.

And then there’s the pace of change.

We built in periodic review, not just as a formality, but because we know this won’t stand still. The technology will keep moving, and so will expectations. By the time a policy goes through governance and approval, parts of it can already feel dated. One colleague said it best, “We weren’t writing for a fixed environment; we were aiming at a moving target.”

It’s impossible to write a one-size-fits-all policy.

At some point, we had to let go of the idea of a perfect policy. It just doesn’t exist.

What does seem workable is something more flexible, such as guidelines people can actually use in different situations, grounded in core ideas like integrity, transparency, and fairness. In our case, that meant focusing on responsible use and shared accountability rather than trying to spell out every possible scenario. It also meant recognizing that policy alone isn’t enough. People need examples, training, and space to work through what this looks like in practice. (And yes, this is where my office gets pulled in.)

And it requires accepting some decentralization. A policy can set guardrails, but it can’t replace professional judgment. And it shouldn’t try to.

Closing Reflection

Higher education has always been decentralized, for the most part, individual institutions have had the control over what that looks like. And at its core, it’s human. It’s shaped by disciplines, values, and experience. AI doesn’t simplify that. If anything, it makes those differences more visible. What it does is push us to confront tensions that have always been there: (1) autonomy versus consistency, (2) innovation versus risk, and (3) efficiency versus ethics. And it forces us to be clearer about what we actually value.

One thing became clear to me through this process--the difficulty of writing AI policy isn’t just about the technology; it’s about the complexity of the institution itself.

And yes, it feels hard. Because it is.

And no, the policy isn’t finalized yet. Like many institutions, we’re still working through it, trying, probably imperfectly, to get it as right as we can.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the blogger.

If you’ve been an ACUPA member or blog post reader for a while now, you’ll have heard all about the “Policy on Policies” — a document that outlines your institution’s overarching policy framework and typically includes information about policy categories, approval authority, approval pathways, rescission authority, and relevant policy framework definitions.

At Mount Royal University, we first established our version of the Policy on Policies -- the Policy on University Policies and Procedures -- in 2016. You may recall from my October 2025 blog post (We need a policy, STAT: Implementing an Expedited Policy Approval Processes) that this is the year we are conducting a major review of our Policy on Policies and determining what changes need to be made based on operational realities and institution evolution.

This includes how we categorize and “sort” our policies within the framework.

Our original policy framework envisioned three categories of policies:

• Board Policies — These policies are owned by our Board of Governors and includes such things as their Code of Conduct, Presidential Search and Appointment Policy, and the institution’s Investment Policy.
• Management Policies — These policies address administrative bodies, personnel and/or standards and protocols. They fall under the authority of the University’s Board of Governors or delegated authority under the Alberta Post-secondary Learning Act.
• Academic Policies — These policies describe matters where authority is delegated to the University’s General Faculties Council under the Alberta Post-secondary Learning Act.

In the existing framework, major revisions to Management Policies must go through a lengthy approval process, culminating in approval by the Board of Governors at one of their four annual meetings. This process typically takes 60 days from start to finish and is constrained by the Board and Board subcommittee meeting schedules.

Major Revisions of Management Policies

The revision of Management Policies typically follows this cycle:

1. Draft presented to Executive Leadership team
2. 30-day Community Consultation
3. Depending on context, a policy may go to General Faculties Council for information
4. Subcommittee of the Board
5. Board of Governors for approval

Upon review of our Policy on Policies, we realized that many of our management policies are more operational in nature and would benefit from a more expeditious policy approval process. This realization evoked a conversation on whether we could create a fourth category of policy, one that would still uphold the integrity of the policy framework while allowing our policy sponsors to respond to policy revisions more nimbly.

Our University Secretary and I immediately considered the pros, cons, and questions that need to be answered about implementing this new policy category.

Pros

+ This policy category would allow for lower-risk policies to be updated more quickly.

+ This policy category would reduce instances of policy work stalling due to the time length of our regular approval processes.

Cons

- Adding a fourth category of policy would add complexity to our framework.

Questions to Consider

• How do we determine which policies can be moved to this new category?
• What exactly would the approval pathway for this new category be?
• How would new policies be approved within this new potential framework?

Our next step was to roughly outline a definition and name for this new category. We landed on administrative policy for the name and described it as “a policy with low reputational, legal, and/or financial risk and is more administrative or operational in nature but still requires University-wide direction or application.”

Then we had to evaluate our existing library of Management Policies and identify those that could be moved to this new policy category. We found that we had 64 Management Policies overseen by six executive sponsors. These policies cover topics relating to legal, risk, information and privacy, human resources, finance, and facilities. Of the 64 Management Policies, we tentatively identified 41 that could be classified under a new Administrative Policy category.

We then worked through the approval processes for major revisions to this new Administrative Policy category. We wanted to uphold the integrity of our policy framework, which includes public consultation for major revisions, but allow for more expeditious action when these policies need to be updated due to operational changes.

Major Revisions of Administrative Policies

We developed the following process:

1. Draft presented to Executive Leadership team
2. 15-day Community Consultation
3. Draft submitted to Executive Leadership team for approval

Shortening the overall community consultation period and maintaining approval at our Executive Leadership team meetings (who meet monthly) will vastly decrease our approval pathway timelines.

In order to ratify this new policy framework, these proposed changes will be submitted to our Board of Governors at their May meeting. There, the Board will review the list of 41 identified policies and (if they agree) formally delegate their future approval authority to the Executive Leadership team.

These changes will mark the largest revision to our policy framework since its inception in 2016. It will be exciting to evaluate it over the coming year(s) to identify if the new category of policy has the positive impact we intended and what “bumps” we need to navigate as we implement.

Most of the time, it’s best to keep drafting committees small; however, complex subjects may require a larger group of subject matter experts. This is certainly the case at Utah Valley University (UVU) where we are currently developing our first policy to address the place that artificial intelligence (AI) will have in university life. Our drafting committee includes faculty, staff, and students with expertise and vested interests from various parts of the university community. Every one of these voices is essential—even if it means managing a much larger group than usual.

In this article, I will discuss how we manage research and drafting with large committees such as this one.

Writing by Committee—Nope, Don’t Do It

Here at the UVU Policy Office, we serve as project managers and editors. We seldom write the policies ourselves; instead, we leave that pleasant task to subject matter specialists. In our experience, the writing process is most efficient when limited to one or two people—usually, the policy steward (who chairs the drafting committee) does the bulk of the policy writing.

So, if they aren’t doing the actual drafting of the policy, what fun is left for the committee members? Their role is to provide meaningful input on the policy draft by identifying gaps, suggesting more effective language, ensuring policy and procedural statements are accurate, suggesting best practices, and ensuring compliance with system policies, state code, and federal law and regulations.

Our office recommends the following process for drafting and reviewing:

1. New policy stewards and committee members receive training from the Policy Office on expectations and best practices. They are also encouraged to use the Policy Office Writer’s Guide.
2. The drafters produce the first version. They may consult with Policy Office editors for an early review before sharing the draft with the committee.
3. Drafters set up a committee meeting and communicate with committee members a week ahead of time so that they can review the draft before the meeting. (Note: We do all our collaborative editing and reviewing in Microsoft Teams.)
4. Committee members take that week to review the draft. They can submit suggestions and comments using the Comments tool in Microsoft Word. The drafters and Policy Office editors can respond to these comments, expressing agreement or disagreement with suggestions, answering questions, etc.
5. In the committee meeting, the drafters proceed with reviewing the document, addressing questions and comments in order. Since committee members review the draft before the meeting, this usually results in shorter and more efficient meetings. It also allows more time for valuable, synchronous discussions that can only occur in meetings held in real time. Depending on the nature of the policy and the comfort level of the drafting committees, we may record these meetings so we have a transcript to refer to.
6. The drafters then take the feedback they receive and pull the draft through another round of writing or editing. Once they believe they have addressed the committee’s concerns, they then meet again to go through the draft and the issues raised.
7. This cycle may be repeated several times until the committee, the drafters, and the Policy Office editors agree that the draft is final.
8. The Policy Office performs a final editorial review and ensures the Office of General Counsel reviews the draft if required. After this, the draft is submitted to President’s Council for approval to enter the next stage in which university community input is obtained.
   

Who’s Got Time for Research?

Ah, research. Who’s got time for that? Usually, the policy steward conducts any required research for the policy. They may have staff to assist them, such as student interns. This research helps inform the content of a new policy or updates to be made to an existing policy. The complexity of the subject matter certainly influences how much research needs to be done.

Subject matter complexity can make it challenging for drafting committee members to digest large amounts of information. This is especially true for a complex subject such as AI, where the challenge is compounded by the technology’s swiftly evolving landscape. The AI committee represents four distinct groups with differing concerns about AI:

• Faculty wanting to know how to ethically use and teach with AI;
• Students requesting transparency in instruction and clear expectations for their own use of AI;
• Staff needing to understand how to use AI ethically so confidential information is not disclosed;
• IT staff needing to be able to make decisions about procurement, adaption, and security requirements around AI.

So how does one research all these different aspects and deliver the information in a way that is succinct but useful for all drafting committee members? Two of our enterprising student interns gathered a team of students who were interested or educated in AI policy. They did this by talking to their peers and their professors. In fact, one of the student’s professors volunteered to be on the drafting committee, adding more perspective and expertise. By the time this blog post is published, this student research team will have completed their research. 

A few years ago, the Policy Office editors and student interns developed a research kit with spreadsheet and research brief templates. We do not require that policy stewards and drafting committees use it; however, many have used this kit to conduct research efficiently and then summarize findings. Drafting committee members have access to the spreadsheets with raw data; however, most find it sufficient to review the resulting research brief. (Our research kit page has some samples of completed research briefs.)

How Do Research Briefs Help with Complex Policies and Drafting Committees?

Conducting research and providing research briefs benefit drafting committee members in several ways:

1. Provide an overview of complex issues in a succinct document.
2. Explain the policy benchmarks that were researched.
3. Reference which institutions’ policies we looked at and why.
4. Document emerging best practices and issues for various aspects of the policy subject with which committee members may not be familiar.

Armed with the research brief, the policy steward can begin building an outline from the main points covered in the research brief. Some stewards have found it helpful to ask the drafting committee to review the outline before they begin writing the policy. We recommend this for especially complex policies.

Guiding Principle: Keep It Simple

The guiding principle for steering large drafting committees is this: keep it simple. Leverage the expertise and insights of your committee members for determining research benchmarks, key points the policy should cover, and to review the draft. The more you prepare ahead of time, the more your committee members can focus on their essential tasks. Recruit student interns to assist with research. This also allows your Policy Office to focus on its essential functions—ours is to provide in-house project management consulting and editorial services.

And as for UVU’s AI policy? We’re hopeful that the research and mindful drafting will create a policy that is relevant in scope and guidance, but flexible enough to encourage innovation and adoption. 

The first resource available to support policy owners in Step 1 is the Policy Template (Resource #1). This ensures that the policy draft includes a clear purpose, scope, definitions, exclusions, references, and supporting resources, in addition to the policy verbiage itself.

Steps 2 through 5 in the policy lifecycle are primarily enforced by Resource #2, the Policy Committee Request Form, a mandatory form for any new policy or policy change request to be considered by the committee. This form requires the policy owner to describe the input provided by stakeholders to ensure the expected results, risk, and financial impact of the new policy or policy change have been adequately considered. The policy owner is expected to identify stakeholders that need to be consulted depending on the policy subject. The Policy Committee Request Form also gets the policy owner thinking about what will be required to ensure a successful implementation following approval by outlining the publication updates required, communication and training plan, and how success will be measured, all of which are thoroughly reinforced by resource #3.

Last but not least, Resource #3 is the Change Management Planning Template, supporting steps 6 & 7 in the policy lifecycle. This resource is not only used at the university for policy change but has quickly become an essential part of our policy toolkit, because even the best policies may be ineffective without successful change management. The template goes deep into the training and communication plan, resistance management, and defining performance metrics and sustainment strategies. A dedicated Change Advisory Board (CAB) comprised of certified Project Management Professions and Change Practitioners review the change plan and offer advice on the implementation strategy, strengthening the overall success of the new policy or policy change.

Through the integration of these three key resources, our policy owners are equipped to navigate the entire lifecycle with precision and clarity. These tools ensure that every policy is built on a foundation of careful planning, intentional structure, and robust implementation. Ultimately, this structured approach transforms policy development into a powerful driver of organizational success and lasting change.

When you’re in a compliance role it’s easy to feel like you’re alone on the ocean, paddling feverishly against the current. But every so often, far out on the horizon, you see another paddler in their own boat, working just as hard as you. Your eyes meet for a brief moment of acknowledgement, you raise clinched fists in solidarity, and after wiping away a tear of empathy you grab your oars and get back to work.

Privacy professionals and policy administrators are two such ships that pass in the night. We both want to understand what the organization is doing but first prioritize understanding the ‘why.’ We take the big scary project and break it down into manageable objectives. We anchor success in collaborations with business and process owners. And, of course, both navigate tricky waters in higher education, facing a similar range of frequently recurring or high priority questions and issues.

So, for the policy administrators wondering what the course charted ahead looks like on the privacy front, here’s a glance at the issues from the other boat.

Privacy vs IT Security: What’s the difference?

(Translation: So, what do you do, exactly?)

Privacy focuses on protecting personally identifiable information and to the extent possible, giving individuals the ability to decide how their information is collected, used, and shared. IT Security is one of the tools and programs that privacy leverages to protect information and fulfill legal and regulatory requirements. Other programs leveraged include records management, physical security, and procurement, as well as administrative safeguards like data sharing agreements and privacy notices. Like policy administrators, our work extends across the entire institution and requires diving deeper than surface level.

OMG AI! How are we going to manage this?

Privacy requires being able to control who has access to data. At its crux, AI’s value rests in its ability to access and process vast amounts of data. The challenge becomes how can institutions utilize AI while enforcing privacy requirements such as individual consent, individual data erasure and access restrictions? A slow and thoughtful roll out is essential.

• Understand the selected AI solution’s technical controls and how data flows.
• Determine what levels of sensitive data can be input based on how the AI solution shares data.
• Prior to activating accounts, train users on the nuts and bolts of how AI works, which uses are permitted and which uses are prohibited, and potential bias and ethical considerations.

Despite the hard work of the policy owners and administrators who communicate and develop training on data specific policies, even the most seasoned user can have knowledge gaps.

Lane change. Is that in privacy’s lane?

When you’ve seen one privacy office, you’ve seen one privacy office. Organizational structure, span of control, scope of responsibilities and reporting relations vary from institution to institution. Getting issues routed to the right area can be confusing. Although sometimes housed under the same organizational umbrella, disciplines distinct from data privacy include intellectual property, records management, constitutional law, FOIA, and IT security. A strong understanding of the responsibilities of each of these areas (often documented in policies, standards, and procedures) will help limit scope creep and keep the privacy administrator’s desk from being the catch-all.

I see you.

Historically, data breaches that could result in financial harms and identity theft got the most attention. Now, with the proliferation of electronic surveillance and technical advancements in image manipulation, institutions must take a closer look at how we collect, use, and maintain this data.

• Assess the amount of electronic surveillance being conducted and why it is being conducted. This includes cameras, physical access logs, and geolocation data derived from device network log in, vehicle GPS or geolocation fences.
• Set restrictions for who can access this information and under what circumstances.
  

Can they do that?

(wh)Y are we doing this?

There are few conversations more valuable than just stepping back and asking, “why are we doing this?” Why are we collecting this data? Why are we seeking a certain outcome? Why are we using a particular methodology, tool or software to collect the data? Why are we using this data in this manner? The best way to protect information is to never collect it in the first place.

• Consider the policies or procedures in place governing data collection, storage, and use at your institution.
• Are there clearly principles that guide data privacy practices?
• Do you need a Privacy policy?

Privacy isn’t just a legal exercise, just like policy isn’t just documentation. Both are expressions of an institution’s values, made real through everyday decisions.

Ultimately, privacy professionals and policy administrators are rowing toward the same horizon. We may be in different boats, but we recognize each other instantly. We ask uncomfortable questions, slow things down when needed, and, when we work together, we help institutions move forward thoughtfully, balancing innovation with responsibility. Sometimes, it’s that brief moment of mutual recognition as are ships pass in the night that reminds us we’re not navigating these waters alone.

Rethinking a familiar governance tool

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.

Stepping into the role of interim administrator within a large administrative unit can be both exciting and challenging. You’re responsible for implementing policy changes that need to be effective in the short term yet sustainable over time, all while maintaining team morale. Yes, that’s a lot to balance, but it reflects the realities of the role. This blog is inspired by my recent experiences and those of colleagues in similar positions. Our stories highlight the need for practical strategies that resonate across different administrative contexts.

Creating a solid structure is vital in any administrative unit. But how do you introduce necessary policies without making everyone feel like they’re stuck in a corporate meeting? Here are some strategies that we employed:

Prepare a smooth transition.

Instead of launching into significant reforms, try a subtler approach. Begin staff meetings with a quick “highs and lows” round. This simple activity sets a positive tone and engages everyone from the start.

Real-life Example: In a library setting, consider implementing small changes like clearer guidelines for interdepartmental collaboration. You might also introduce a “Book of the Month” discussion, allowing staff to share insights on professional development books. Such activities can spark conversation and foster a sense of community.

Create a policy framework.

When it comes to policy changes, clarity and choice are crucial. Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, offer a variety of options for your staff to consider.

Real-life Example: In HR, you could present options such as revised work policies, new professional development programs, or updated performance evaluation criteria that include peer feedback. Empowering employees to choose what resonates with them encourages ownership and engagement.

Test with a preliminary launch.

As you prepare to roll out new policies, start with a soft launch. Pilot programs allow for experimentation without the pressure of full implementation.

Real-life Example: In IT, if you’re introducing a new project management tool, test it with one team first. Gather their feedback to make practical adjustments before a broader rollout.

Engage an advisory council.

Form an advisory council of enthusiastic staff willing to embrace change. This group could brainstorm ideas, pilot new policies, and facilitate communication throughout the unit.

Real-life Example: In student services, create a committee that includes representatives from various roles, such as advisors and counselors. This group could meet monthly to review student feedback collected through surveys and use those insights to develop initiatives that address students' needs.

Listen to your staff.

Listening is a crucial skill in this role. Schedule regular open forums or “listening sessions” where staff can share their insights and feedback on potential policy changes.

Real-life Example: In a library, implement a "Feedback Wall" where staff can anonymously post their thoughts and suggestions. Set aside time each month to review these notes together as a team, encouraging open dialogue that can lead to innovative solutions.

In conclusion, navigating policy changes in large administrative units requires a careful balance, especially for an interim leader. You want to provide structure while respecting the existing dynamics within the organization. By embracing small incremental approaches, offering diverse policy options, and considering preliminary launches, you can foster a culture of collaboration and innovation. I encourage you to reflect on your own experiences and share your thoughts. How have you engaged your staff in policy changes? What challenges have you faced, and what strategies have worked for you? Your insights can inspire others facing similar challenges, so don’t hesitate to share.

Acknowledgement: This blog was enhanced with the assistance of AI tools to refine ideas and improve clarity.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the blogger.

The Policy Ask

In June of 2025, the Alberta Government introduced a new Fairness and Safety in Sport Act ( (hereafter referred to as the "Act”) and accompanying regulation.

Google Gemini (an AI tool) summarizes the legislation in the following paragraph:

"Fairness and Safety in Sport policies are regulations, particularly in Alberta, Canada, designed to ensure integrity, equity, and safety in sports, especially for female athletes. These policies, such as Alberta's Fairness and Safety in Sport Act and its accompanying Regulation, require sports organizations to implement rules and procedures for athlete eligibility and participation. The Alberta Act specifically mandates policies that limit eligibility for female-only divisions to biologically female athletes, aiming to protect the integrity of women's sports while also seeking to provide avenues for transgender athletes' meaningful participation."

The government made it clear that Post-Secondary Institutions fall under the Act and regulation, and that we had to have a Board-approved policy in place by September 1, 2025.

Now, I’m sure most of you can immediately spot the challenge of being told in June that you need a Board-approved policy in place by September 1. Our Board of Governors meetings follow the academic calendar and we do not have any regularly scheduled meetings between June and September. Our standard policy approval process includes a 30-day community consultation period and we try our best to ensure that consultation happens during the academic year when faculty and students are on campus.

The Challenges

So, what did we do? We first turned to our trusty Policy on University Policies and Procedures, which did already include a process for expedited policy approvals. Our Policy on Policies currently states:

EXPEDITED POLICIES

1.1 In extraordinary circumstances calling for urgent action, such as a change in federal or provincial law, a significant and immediate financial opportunity, or a major institutional risk, the President may revise or put into effect a Policy without prior presentation to or consultation with the University’s Board of Governors which would otherwise be required.

1.2 If a Policy is revised or put into effect by the President in extraordinary circumstances, the University Secretariat will notify Employees in a timely manner.

1.3 Any Academic or Management Policy put into, or taken out of, effect in such a manner must immediately enter a normal development process in accordance with the Policy Framework.

However, this still left us with some issues. This expedited process provides approval authority to the President, but the Act and legislation required a Board-approved policy. We were also concerned about our ability to truly follow a normal development process after the fact when the Act and legislation had clear requirements about the policy content.

The Solution

Knowing we didn’t have a lot of time, the Associated General Counsel and I quickly took action, working closely with the executive who oversees our athletics department, to draft a policy and procedure that complied with the Act while minimizing administrative burden and protecting athlete privacy and confidentiality.

We also engaged in conversations with our President and University Secretary to consider ways to bring this policy forward for approval given the challenges outlined above. In the end, we decided a special meeting of the Board’s Governance and Nominating Committee in August would be the best approach, followed by community engagement activities in September.

The Board’s Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference permit them to “act on behalf of, and with the full authority of the Board on matters that arise between regularly scheduled Board meetings.” We held a special meeting of the Governance and Nominating Committee at the end of August, at which time they approved the Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy and Procedure on behalf of our university’s Board of Governors. This allowed us to meet the Act and legislation requirement to have a Board-approved policy in place by September 1st.

Now, we were left with the challenge of how to address community engagement without the ability to conduct a formal consultation process. Again, through conversations with our University Secretary and the executive who oversees our athletics department we decided we would bring the new Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy and Procedure to various formal governing bodies of our institution for information and discussion [which includes Deans Council and General Faculties Council (our version of an academic Senate)], invite our campus community to share feedback with us about the anticipated impacts of the policy, and then share all the feedback collected with our Board of Governors.

Next Steps

ACUPA recently opened its Call for Proposals for the 2026 Annual Conference in Denver, Colorado. As a member of the Event Planning Committee (EPC), I know just how much the committee pours into making sure this conference is worth every minute and dollar spent attending.

With the expansion of ACUPA's institutional memberships, our membership stretches beyond direct policy office administrators, so many of you may not have experienced the caliber of the conference we put on each year. I also know higher ed institutions are tightening their belts under financial uncertainty. So, for this month’s post, I sat down (in front a screen) for a chat with chair-elect of ACUPA’s Board of Directors and Event Planning Committee chair, Kelly Cross, to dive into what makes ACUPA's annual conference one of the best professional investments you can make in 2026.

I hope you’ll be inspired to join us in Denver, April 20-22, and consider submitting a conference session proposal. The deadline to submit a proposal is October 16, 2025.

Editorial Note: I am convinced that this interview should have been podcast. I regret that you can’t see our facial expressions and gestures, or hear our asides. Editorial liberties were taken to ensure this post captured the essence of our conversation and came out (somewhat) shorter than a federal regulation.

The Interview

MONIQUE: What makes this year’s conference unique compared to previous years?

KELLY: We've seen a few different things over the last few years.

One, we've seen increased attendance, which we love. I hope it's a reflection of how important policy administrators are on their respective college campuses. I also suspect it might be a reflection of how much we need each other and want to have a network of colleagues.

But we've also noticed that our sessions’ contents have become more and more advanced. Typically, they represent experiences or questions that folks might have if they're more seasoned in the field or they've already gone through some of the foundational elements of a policy program.

One thing that we [ACUPA] really want to focus on this year is pulling back in that foundational element in a pretty unique way. To that end, we're going to do our first ever solo pre-conference. The pre-conference is going to be focused on those foundational elements, and so it's going to be great for an individual who is new to higher education policy. We're going to talk about your Policy on Policies. We're going to talk about the intersections of shared governance, and all of those key things. I also think it's going to be good for people who might need a refresher. 

MONIQUE: From your perspective as a board member, and not just EPC chair, why is this conference a “must-attend” event?

KELLY: Our annual conference is a must attend event for a number of reasons, not least of which for me personally is that I find it to be very rejuvenating. I am the only, you know, enterprise-wide policy administrator at my institution. That may be true for many of our members. To be able to have our own conference is great, but it's also kind of like an intensive, right? There are sessions, but you're all in this kind of cohort experience together while we're going through it. We're all attending the same sessions together and we can network in a way that is super beneficial and I think rejuvenating and energizing for the field. 

And so I think--there's probably a better way to say this--the bang for the buck, or the return on the investment, is excellent. I can get so much information in one place at one time and feel great about it and want to stay employed in my field work. It's really a one stop shop for me, and honestly, it's so valuable to me that even if I wasn't EPC chair and I think even if I wasn't a member of the board, if for some reason I didn't have funding, I would still personally pay to come to this conference because I need to go for myself. 

MONIQUE: I've said the same thing.

KELLY: I think it's worthwhile from a budget standpoint, but I think it's worthwhile from a professional development standpoint. It gets me connected in a way that it doesn't just solve these immediate questions that I have at the conference. It gets me connected to professionals that I contact throughout the year. So, it's facilitating these kind of one-off interactions that last year-round really. 

MONIQUE: And that kind of already answered my question, but what do you look forward to most about the conference?

KELLY: Oh my gosh, all of it! I look forward to so much.

I look forward to the content because I know I'm going to learn something new. I also have to say I know I'm going to see people doing really amazing things. I do have to work on being OK with what I'm doing, you know, not feeling like I'm not doing enough, you know what I mean? And I think that's the other benefit of the conference is that every policy program is in a different place and we're all doing what we can and it's all, it's all good.

I look forward to that. But it's the network for me that I love so much. I have members of a ACUPA pinned in my Teams chat because I talk to y'all so much throughout the year and its one-off conversations about policies or procedure or process or how people are handling X, Y and Z. I also love the post-conference vacations that some of us take together.

MONIQUE: Yeah {sighs and looks off into the distance longingly}

KELLY: Yeah. Yeah. You know!

MONIQUE: So, I know we talked a little bit about why you and I, who are in this field, want to go to the conference.

But what would you say to those folks who are part of institutional memberships who maybe don't have the word “policy” in their title? Why should they attend this conference?

 KELLY: So as a policy administrator, I work with a lot of people who are responsible for policy who do not have “policy” in their title, and it's because they're the content subject matter expert, the SME.

I think once you get to a certain level of an organization, the likelihood that you are responsible for a policy, and in most cases many policies, is very high. So, we have our financial compliance officer who is one of our [ACUPA] institutional members at Georgia Tech. She's responsible for like eight policies and “policy” is not in her title anywhere. I think the benefit of attending this conference for her or for an HR project manager that oversees policies for human resources is that they're getting to connect with other people who are in similar roles.

You get insight into some of the behind the scenes work that goes on so that you can more efficiently and more effectively navigate your own processes when you return to your primary campus. Also, you are hearing about how other schools manage the work and you might be able to advocate for a change in process or procedure at your own institution. Even though you may not be directly responsible for the enterprise-wide policy process, policy owners can request and advocate for quite a lot, because most policy administrators, we want it to be a good experience. So, they're looking at it from a different lens than we might be, and I think it's just going to help their own personal experience just be even better.

MONIQUE: Awesome. I think that’s great. {ready to move on}

KELLY: Yeah, I'm going to add something to that one. Sorry. So, we have had some members who are, you know, we talk a lot about higher education and our higher education policy administrators or our institutional members. But we know we have members that are staff or employees at state agencies. 

MONIQUE: OK, go for it. {chuckling}

KELLY: A few years ago, we had a member from one of the Illinois state agencies who was building an entirely new office and program. And one of the things she had to do was do a lot of policies. And there is so much overlap between a higher education institution and a state agency and kind of policy, procedure, bureaucracy. She found it incredibly beneficial because she, similar to many of us, felt alone and wasn't really sure how to do things. She was able to get connected to other employees from other states who run policies for their respective unit that is not a college, and I think she still keeps in touch with them as well. So, there's a lot of benefit even if you're not in higher education. 

MONIQUE: Absolutely. I agree with you. Some of the things that we talk about are so foundational to program building in general, whether we’re talking about stakeholder development or risk assessment or some of these other topics. It’s really a “plug and play.” While we all have unique lenses on higher ed, especially coming from a public institution, we have that state entity and federal bureaucracy lens that we get to carry. Like state agencies, we very similarly understand doing a lot with a little. 

KELLY: Yes, yes, and documenting. {Laughs}

MONIQUE: Making it all work and documenting the heck out of it!

MONIQUE: In what ways does the conference strengthen ACUPA’s community and network and advance the mission? What impact is ACUPA having in our community, but also the industry? 

KELLY: I think there is a real tangible benefit that we get from being from being in the same place at the same time, where we can immediately engage in some cross-institutional dialogue around what we're learning in the moment so we can engage in the “pair and shares.” We can formulate opinions. We can make recommendations that other schools might consider that would not have popped up, in an otherwise organic way.

And it’s also not recorded. So, people are more willing to say things that they may be less inclined to put in a forum post or e-mail to someone. You kind of get the real, off-the-cuff responses from other policy administrators that might be more.

MONIQUE: Well, I think of the depth of what you can provide to somebody in these spaces, right? We understand confidentiality and sensitivity. We get what you might be inferring, but you can finally just say out loud, “this is a really tough situation I’m dealing with,” without it sounding like you're whining about your job.

KELLY: Yeah, absolutely. We can get to--and I think you hit it--we can get to that depth of knowledge and depth of sharing that is very difficult to do via a forum post or an e-mail and because we're all together. It's much more effective. You're not having to schedule 15 30-minute meetings to try to figure things out.

MONIQUE: Yeah, I just feel like sometimes like our conferences are so intense, because you're taking in so much that like, I leave and there's that high that we're all together, and then that low that I'm worthless and not doing enough {laughs}. And then there's like this middle ground that’s like, “OK, what can I do?”

KELLY: No, that's exactly it, Monique. “What can I do immediately? Because I see all of the amazing things that my colleagues are doing. How can I do a smidge of it?” But I think we're all feeling that because we all want to do good work. We're all trying to do more with less.

MONIQUE: Well, let's jump into impact of the organization. How is this conference advancing this profession? 

KELLY: One, this is really, to my knowledge, the only conference where we are focused on policy administration, right? It is not a backburner topic at a larger organization. You know, every single session is going to be applicable, and every single session is going to bring some advanced knowledge, interest, skill, right? And all of those things drive the profession forward. There are so few of us at our respective college campuses, most of us are in office of one, or half of one… unless you're Tony Graham and then you have 12 people. 

{both start laughing}

MONIQUE: You’re totally right. This is going in... “unless you’re Tony Graham” –

KELLY: --unless you're at the University of Pittsburgh, and you got a billion people working with you… I think that being together at the conference, it gives us some weight. In a way, it is advertising that the profession and field and organization exists. I think in general, getting people together as a field of study and field of work to share ideas, share knowledge, share expertise, moves, moves the functional area forward. 

We come from a lot of different places and [policy] is one of the critical elements of the seven elements of an effective compliance program, right. And this is the only conference exclusively focused on one of those seven. You know, auditors have their conference and organizations, but this this is specific to policy.  And that has far, far reaching impacts, right? If we're saying that this is a standard for the field, it has huge impacts for our larger compliance programs and how those functions work together or don't work together.

MONIQUE: We’ve talked about how the conference has really become more and more advanced. How does the conference support the policy program maturity levels of all possible attendees?

KELLY: There are some targeted aspects of it where we're going to hit people who might want either new foundational knowledge or a refresher on foundational knowledge.

There's going to be a benefit to employees who are kind of moving from their initial years in the field to more senior roles. Even if you have all the experience in the world with policy, so much our success and ability to do good work is dependent upon others in an in an institutional administration or where we are in the organization.

What if we suddenly have an executive leader who wants to change a lot of things that goes counter to your established process? Revisiting those foundational elements can be very useful. Or connecting with individuals from schools who are doing things the way they want to switch to.

Or maybe you're starting a new job and you need to reconnect to see how people are doing things. Things are never static. We think we've solved a problem and then the problem circles back around. People change and so questions that have been asked and answered years ago come back around, and I need to remember why the answer I provided years ago or the decisions we made years ago may not be relevant anymore or may not be enough. Times have changed, y'all.  Doesn't matter how much experience I have, this is my first experience--

MONIQUE: --with this rain fire?! {throwing hands up in the air}

KELLY: Bam, that's exactly it! This is my first experience being a policy administrator after 183 executive orders.

You know, I'm at a state institution, the leadership of our Regents, our legislators, those change. So even if I stayed the same, the things around me are changing and I need to be prepared to respond and do so in an informed way. Which is why I think colleagues who have that experience are incredibly valuable, like you, Katheryn Yetter, definitely.  And Tony “I have a million employees” Graham.

MONIQUE: Last thing, what is one thing you hope every attendee takes away from this conference, this year's conference? 

KELLY:  Yeah.  {sheepishly} So, I'm going to say that there are two things. I know you asked for one thing. 

MONIQUE: {rolls eyes and laughs} I hate you so much. Nothing's more Kelly than that statement. Go for it.

KELLY: So first of several things is: YOU CAN DO THIS. You can do the work. 

There are resources and people who want to help each other out and it can be very stressful trying to figure out what to do first and then what to do next. And you can figure it out and we can help you.

Which leads into the second thing that is YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

You're not alone in this field. You may be the only person on your campus with the title. You may feel alone, but you're not alone with us. We got your back and selfishly, maybe not selfishly, but--this is my personal perspective, right-- what I gained from attending this conference are the things that kept me in the field. I alluded to this before, but I was really ready to leave the field, and then I attended one of ACUPA’s in-person conferences and I really felt like I could just breathe. I could take a deep breath again and I didn’t have to figure things out by myself. I had a team of people that I could connect with, and the work felt much more achievable. 

We collect feedback via surveys at the end of each conference, but please feel free to share what you find most valuable about attending the annual conference by emailing the EPC at events@acupa.org.

The Quest for Accessible Language

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

If the editor determines that a lower reading level would be appropriate, they discuss this with the policy steward and the assigned attorney and begin their work. We have experimented with using AI (CoPilot or ChatGPT) as a tool to help us simplify complex passages. We may use prompts similar to this:

Simplify this paragraph into plainer English:

{Text inserted}


“Recast this text into reading level 12.”

{Text inserted}

Step 5

Collaborating with our Attorneys

The assigned attorney conducts their legal review to ensure the policy content is legally sound and meets compliance requirements with Utah Board of Higher Education policy, state laws, and federal laws and regulations. The attorney is also tasked with ensuring the policy language itself communicates clearly any required legal meaning.

Because we use MS Teams to collaborate during the review process, the editor, the attorney, and the policy steward can chat or comment back and forth within the document. Once the attorney completes their review, the editor, attorney, and policy steward meet to review all revisions and resolve outstanding issues or questions.

This collaboration requires diplomacy and compromise. As the Policy Office editors, we do our best to advocate for clear, accessible language, while the attorneys focus on ensuring legal soundness to protect the institution and its community. There are situations where established legal language must prevail, and others where plain language is sufficient. The editors and attorneys, along with the policy stewards, can prioritize these needs through collaboration. The result of this collaboration is a policy that has benefited from those with editorial skills, subject matter expertise, and legal expertise.

One of our attorneys, Greg Jones, said this about his experience with the collaboration between editors, attorneys, and policy stewards:

“This was an ensemble project; team members respected each other’s proposed edits, even the ones that were ultimately rejected. We learned how to work with each other through the process of back-and-forth. Toward the end, a moment came when I thought everything was coming together, but I could see we had some legal problems with the draft. I saw a way to both fix those problems and significantly simplify the policy, but my solution would trample past edits of team members, and for all I knew it might break something. The team let me take a shot at it. The next day, we started our meeting, and to my surprise, they not only accepted my edits but liked them. This turned out to be a collaborative effort in which everyone enhanced the effectiveness of the others, focused on our objective, and we achieved success. In the end I did not feel like an attorney advising the drafting committee but simply felt like another member of the team.”

What our Attorneys Contribute

Policy Officer editors have discovered the following about what their attorney colleagues contribute to crafting policy language:

• They do indeed wish to use clear, Plain English as much as possible; they are willing to work with the editors and compromise on language. The exception is where specific language has been established in case law and is imbued with specific legal meaning.
• They are aware of the subtle legal meaning that certain words or phrases have—this is training most editors do not have. They work with us to determine whether we can use simpler phrasing if we have to use the legal term or language.
• They have excellent editorial instincts and provide suggestions on the logical order of ideas and consistent use of terms, and which terms are appropriate.
• They can see how language and legal meaning have a very subtle interplay and how even seemingly small revisions can have an impact on the legal meaning and standing of policy text.

Ongoing Benefits of this Collaboration

As a policy administrator, few accomplishments are more meaningful than helping a colleague navigate a complex policy project. One of the most fulfilling aspects of my role as Policy & Records Analyst is providing guidance and support, especially when policy development and review feel unfamiliar or overwhelming.

At Concordia University of Edmonton (CUE), a small university in Edmonton, Alberta, known for its strong sense of community, that supportive spirit extends to our policy work. Our approach emphasizes collaboration, clarity, and long-term sustainability, ensuring that institutional policies remain aligned with the university’s vision, mission, and strategic objectives.

When I joined CUE, my aim was to establish a consistent, university-wide process for developing and reviewing policies. Early on, I recognized that building an effective policy program involves more than setting rules or monitoring compliance. It requires meaningful engagement with the people who contribute to the work. At CUE, policy development is a shared responsibility. Developers come from across the institution, bringing diverse expertise and varying levels of experience in policy writing. To support their success, I created the Policy Developers’ Toolkit—a user-focused resource designed to empower policy developers to engage confidently and effectively in the policy development and review process.

Why we created the toolkit

CUE’s five-step policy development and review process is designed to be straightforward, consistent across all policy instrument types, and easy to follow:

1.  A new policy action (creating a new policy or revising or rescinding an existing one) is proposed through a Policy Document Action Plan.
2. Upon endorsement, the policy owner assigns a policy developer or development team.
3. The development phase includes benchmarking, drafting, and consultation.
4. The policy is submitted to the Policy Review Committee for review.
5. Final approval is sought from the appropriate institutional authority.

Although the process itself is simple on paper, Step 3—development and revision by the policy developer—is often the most challenging. Policy developers are typically subject-matter experts, but they may not be familiar with translating their expertise into policy language that is clear, concise , and helpful.

As I worked alongside developers, I realized that providing one-on-one support for each project would not be sustainable long-term. I began by sharing checklists and other key reference documents, but it soon became clear that we needed a more comprehensive, centralized resource. The goal was twofold: to build confidence and understanding among our developers and to enable me, as the policy administrator, to manage multiple projects efficiently while still offering meaningful support.

Bringing these resources together in a central repository also allowed me to understand how they worked together and identify any gaps. This insight allowed me to refine the tools, build coherence, and ensure the approach remained practical and user-friendly.

What’s in the toolkit?

The Policy Developers’ Toolkit is hosted in CUE Connect, our employee intranet. It is organized around the key stages of the policy development and review cycle, and is designed to meet developers where they are—whether they are new to policy work or more experienced.

Current resources include:

• Policy Document Checklist – used by both policy developers and the Policy Review Committee to ensure policies are clear, concise, and helpful.
• Templates – standardized, fillable templates for various policy instruments.
  
• Standard Policy Definitions – to support clarity and consistency across all documents.
• Policy Benchmarking Tool – a custom Google search engine that scans 100+ Canadian post-secondary policy sites based on a keyword search.
• Instructional Videos – short walkthroughs, including a Quick Start Guide for new developers.
• Links to Key Resources – including our policy repository and essential documents like the Policy Document Action Plan.

Building Your Own Toolkit

If your institution does not yet have a policy development toolkit, or you are in the process of building one, here are a few steps I recommend:

1. Find a Home for Your Toolkit: Use a central, easily accessible location such as an employee intranet.
2. Start with What You Have: Gather existing resources like templates, checklists, and process guides.
3. Communicate Often: Link to the toolkit in training materials, auto-replies, and communications with policy developers.
4. Invite Feedback: Engage your users to learn what is working and what could be improved.
5. Review and Improve: A good toolkit should evolve with your policy program. Make updates a regular part of your work.
   

When we launched our toolkit, it coincided with significant revisions to our Policy on University Policy Documents. This timing allowed the toolkit to support implementation and promote a smoother transition. A well-timed, accessible toolkit can be a powerful aid in navigating institutional change.

Final Thoughts: Policy as a Community Effort

To me, policy work is one of the ways we express care for our institution and for one another. The Policy Developers’ Toolkit reflects that care by prioritizing clear guidance and accessible support to help our colleagues navigate what can sometimes feel like a complex process. While it is a practical tool, I also see it as a statement: policy work matters, and the people doing it deserve the right support to do it well.

Over time, consistent communication helped embed the toolkit into CUE’s institutional culture. It has become a staple in our policy trainings, a standard reference in policy-related email communications, and a key component of our broader efforts to promote policy literacy. Housed within our centralized hub for policy information, the toolkit makes it easy for employees to find the right resources at the right time.

As the toolkit becomes further integrated into our policy infrastructure, we continue to expand its scope. Planned additions include interactive training modules and workshops designed to build engagement and deepen institutional capacity in policy development. In this way, the toolkit is not a static product, but a growing and evolving support system that reflects our commitment to a thoughtful, community-centered approach.

As policy administrators, we know that policy work is both foundational and deeply human. While our documents provide structure, it is the people who shape them. The support they receive plays a vital role in ensuring policies reflect our institutional values and serve our communities well. By investing in the individuals who create and revise our policies, we help foster a culture of collaboration, inclusion, and shared purpose.
-
If you have tools or strategies that have proven helpful in your own policy toolkit, or if you are currently building one for your institution, I warmly invite you to share your insights and experiences. Please feel free to leave a comment or reach out to me at christine.valentine@concordia.ab.ca. I look forward to connecting and learning from your journey.

It was the evening of December 23, 2024. Many policy administrators already turned on their automatic-replies and were preparing for a few days (or a couple weeks) of well-deserved vacation, away from all of those relentless emails and news alerts. It was then, when no one was looking, that H.R.5646 was signed into law. A new email from the Clery Center pinged in inboxes but there was no one there to hear it. If you were one of the lucky policy administrators, someone at your institution gave you a heads up about the bill—now, the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA)--while it was making its way through congressional approvals. Perhaps your institution already assembled a team and was ready to create or revise a new hazing policy. But alas, most policy administrators returned to skeleton offices after a few days off or worse, did not return until mid-January, and waiting in our inboxes was a loud ticking clock – a new regulatory deadline that was less than six months away.

The Dreaded Group Project

Panic

My new year’s resolution had included not taking responsibility for other people’s job duties and SCHA was teeing me up for a failed resolution. Like many policy administrators, I needed to know who was leading the charge on this project.

To nod to Alison Whiting’s Policy Matters post last month, policy administrators are often pulled into drafting teams with varying degrees of direction, engagement, and success. SCHA is complex and meeting the deadline would require more cross-campus collaboration and speed than most policy projects. So, when I returned to the office after two weeks of blissful vacation, I (choosing optimism) looked for a special meeting invite, a notification from being added to a new collaboration folder, or even just an email thread (anything!)... Nothing.

Hope

Alas! I didn’t have to panic for long. The invite, folder notification, and emails started mid-January, and we were off to the races. I can look back at the past few months, now, with the deadline for SCHA just a few days away, and confidently say my new year’s resolution remains intact. From a policy administrator’s perspective, the SCHA project execution was a success at my institution, especially when it came to policy development and revision. Here’s why I think it succeeded.

Team > Group

The People

From the beginning, leadership set the tone. The project was led from the top by two executive leaders. Their commitment and engagement kept the project moving and gave it the gravity it needed to stay on track.

Leadership also ensured that all known stakeholder groups were represented on the project team. Even better, the representatives pulled in were decisionmakers and implementers. This had significant impact when it came to keeping discussions productive and outcomes actionable.

The Plan

A plan was clearly defined from before the very first meeting. Regular project all-team meetings were added to our calendars. At the first meeting, deliverables and assignments were outlined upfront, and the policy approval workflow was used to work backwards to help set deadlines. The project team divided into subcommittees with one focused solely on drafting our Hazing policy’s revision. Having these smaller groups made it easier to make swift decisions and produce materials with clear requests or challenges to discuss when the larger team reconvened. All committee materials were shared and organized in a single collaboration folder. Clear direction and required transparency allowed each team member to go “All in.” (IYKYK)

The Discussions

The entire project team worked efficiently. Within the policy subcommittee, emails received quick responses, assignments and drafts were reviewed prior to our meetings. Each of us knew our particular role in the subcommittee and we leveraged the others’ strengths and expertise to come to a consensus on language. For example, our previous definition of hazing required modifications to meet the new requirements in the SCHA definition. We realized we were drafting an endless list of examples and pinning our conduct office in a corner. What if we said “paddling” but left out “spanking” or “whipping?” Wasn’t it all physical harm? If we categorized our examples, we could make sure the definition endured the constant evolution of hazing practices we see with each new incoming class.

We adopted this approach for the rest of the policy. If we stayed broad, it allowed the student conduct and human resources offices to lean into their established procedures to handle each report on a case-by-case basis. Because these conversations and details were hashed out in smaller meetings, we confidently presented our recommendations to the larger team. With some questions, but very few requests for changes, the policy moved forward. Our small group trusted each other and the project team trusted us.

The Foundation

Any project team can fall into the trap of trying to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes it’s necessary. But with less than six months to pull together a policy, trainings, and update processes, taking advantage of what was already in place helped the project team move quickly. The other subcommittees looked at their processes and resources and saw where they could make tweaks just like the policy subcommittee did. As the group came together, we were able to lean into the expectations of the policy. We asked: Does the policy support the procedures? Does it clearly state the requirements needed to hold people accountable? Can the policy be enforced? Does it provide enough latitude for the breadth of the subject matter? As policy administrators, we ask these questions of our policy owners and writers often. It can seem second nature for us, but when asked aloud to a large project team and confirmation was received, the significance of our policy writing standards stood out.

I must also point out a couple foundational components we were able to leverage that I know some policy administrators could not.

1. Clemson already had a Hazing policy.
2. South Carolina law requires higher education institutions to track and report certain hazing violations.

These allowed project team members to show up prepared for the group discussions and to update their practices, expand services, build webpages, and revise a policy. And then we had our champions in leadership who set their expectations for us all and kept the momentum all the way to the end.

While I would never wish on any policy administrator another “middle-of-the-night-while- everyone’s-asleep legal requirement to comply with in six months" it was an inspiring experience to see colleagues across campus shine in their areas of expertise, collaborate quickly and effectively, and build trust as a group—ultimately becoming a team. This project gives me hope for future ones and ideas to help course correct others.

I want to give a HUGE shout out to everyone on the project team from Clemson University’s division of student affairs, office of access compliance and education, marketing and communications, office of general counsel, division of public safety, and office of university compliance and ethics! Well done, team. Go Tigers!

*Please note: at the time of the original publication of this post, Clemson's revised  Hazing policy is pending president approval and is not yet publicly available. Visit Clemson University's Policies site on June 23rd to read the final version. 

I think it is no small secret that universities love a committee. Whether you call them committees, working groups, task forces, advisory groups, steering committees, or something else entirely, it would not surprise me to learn that your university has these in abundance. If there’s a problem, there’s probably a committee being formed to find the solution.

But I jest. Committees (advisory groups, task forces, etc.) are an integral component of collegial governance. And in many ways, there are indisputable benefits to having a cross-institutional committee weigh in on policy decisions that have broad campus impacts.

Benefits such as:

• Breadth of expertise: Universities are awash with subject matter experts and their expertise can help ground the policy in the context of the university’s campus culture and history.
• Cross-divisional representation: Including representation across different divisions of the university helps create well-rounded and inclusive policies and ensures relevant application in all areas.
• Proactive stakeholder consultation: Early input from relevant stakeholders can speed up the policy approval process by identifying and addressing issues right away.
• Improved uptake: When more people have been involved in the policy process it creates a sense of shared ownership which can lead to better buy-in and uptake during the operationalization of the policy.

However, the question at the heart of this blog post is: Is drafting by committee the most effective strategy for policy writing? And I’m not so sure that it is. While we want to ensure we are capitalizing on the wealth of expertise available on campus and gathering the relevant people in the room, we also run the risk of the proverbial “too many cooks in the kitchen.” And when we have too many cooks in the kitchen, we can end up with a policy that includes everything and the kitchen sink.

Drafting by committee can lose sight of the overall objective.

The challenge with drafting by committee is that we can quickly lose sight of the overall objective as everyone starts getting into the weeds about what the policy needs to say and how it needs to be said. People come to the table with their own personal objectives of what they believe the policy needs to cover, and if they successfully convince the rest of the committee to include each of those objectives or pieces of information, we can quickly end up with a policy draft that is unwieldy.

Drafting by committee can cause logistical challenges.

Challenges such as coordinating meetings, keeping people on task, waiting for each committee member to weigh in on decisions, coming to consensus with there are differing opinions and perspectives, time spent wordsmithing the language so that we can land on a message that's not only precisely accurate, but accurately precise while also artfully exact, with every word pulling its semantic weight. Or at least that’s what the linguists in the room tell me.

So how and when can we use committees in our policy process?

My personal preference is to capitalize on existing committees as part of an early consultation process. As we covered at the start of this blog, it is highly likely that you already have a plethora of committees at your disposal. There is likely one, if not two or three or four, committees scattered across campus that include relevant subject matter expertise and cross-institutional representation that you could utilize to help inform the policy without actually asking them to write it. Why ask people to form and join yet another committee when you can simply go to them? Instead, consider:

• Take the existing policy (or the plan for a new policy) to the committee and ask the committee members to identify their top one to two pain points with the policy.
• Take that information away, and use it to help inform the new draft.
• Bring the new draft back to the committee for feedback.

The key to this process is to let the committee know they are not “the owners” of the policy, you are there seeking their feedback and expertise, but that ultimately the policy drafter is making the final decision on the scope, content and language of the policy.

This process can be repeated with however many relevant committees or groups exist on campus relative to the topic of the policy being drafted or revised. Utilizing existing committees in this way helps reap the benefits, while sidestepping the challenges.

Whether you always write policy by committee, never write policy by committee or occasionally find yourself writing policy by committee, this blog post has hopefully sparked some reflection on the value and pitfalls of drafting by committee.

This is not your typical policy post. I contemplated blog topics for months and everything that I came up with seemed pointless in the current chaos of our world as policy administrators. I was losing hope – fast. So, I wrote a "Dear Abby Letter" and let ChatGPT play the role of Abby. The results surprised me and prompted this post. (Abby's response was modified for length and audience.)

This was an exercise for me to find hope in my work again. It helped me identify practical ways to weather the storm and I hope it does the same for you.

Dear Abby:

I am a public servant working in higher education and, recently, it feels like my world is a shaken snow globe, flipped upside down. I am passionate about this industry and believe a university is THE COOLEST place to work. I know that those who work in higher education help make dreams come true and change lives for the better.

But in the past few months (well, maybe years) my work has been turned against me. You see, my role is to help ensure our university has policies that comply with federal and state rules, and to help members of my university know and understand these rules. Lately, the rules are changing at lightning speed, outside of normal processes, and are unlike anything I've had to help manage before. I'm no stranger to putting my head down and getting the work done or to swallowing my dissenting opinion on how things are executed. But right now, I feel like my values are being challenged. I KNOW my personal values are being violated, but my professional values, the ethics that are the foundation of my work, are being distorted.

Higher education is also facing huge financial challenges and I'm not certain about my professional future. Will I have to find a new job? Will I have to fall in love with a new industry? Usually, I turn to the university I serve and find hope in the students from all over the world, the mind-blowing research, and the energy that comes from innovation and growth. I'm losing hope. How do I weather this storm when it's a complete whiteout?

- Shaken Snow Globe

Dear Shaken Snow Globe:

First, let me say this: you are clearly someone who cares deeply—not just about rules and regulations, but about people, purpose, and doing what’s right. That kind of commitment is admirable.

It’s no small thing to feel your professional values—those carefully built foundations—being shaken. When the work you once saw as noble begins to feel compromised, it’s not just disorienting, it’s heartbreaking. And in higher education, where the stakes are high and the resources low, that heartbreak can be compounded by exhaustion, uncertainty, and loss of purpose.

 Rest assured, that even though the system is strained and the mission muddled, your values and talents are intact—they are your compass.

When your world feels like a total whiteout, the key is not to force clarity all at once, but to anchor yourself to what you do know:

• You know what you stand for.
• You know what doing the right thing looks like.
• You know your impact matters—even when it feels invisible.

In this storm, focus on finding even the smallest moments of alignment: a student who “gets it,” a colleague who shares your values, a task that feels true to your mission.

And as for your future—remember, uncertainty is not the enemy. It may be the invitation.

You asked, how do I weather this storm? The same way you’ve done your entire career: with courage, clarity, and conviction. But don’t try to do it alone. Talk to mentors. Seek allies. And if hope feels low—borrow some from those who believe in you.

The snow will settle. And when it does, you’ll still be standing—values intact, clearheaded, and compass pointing forward.

 With empathy and encouragement,

Abby

Weathering the Policy Storm: Practical Tips for Policy Administrators

The landscape of higher education is shifting rapidly, but there are steady practices and strategies that can help institutions not only survive but lead with clarity and integrity through turbulent times. Policy administrators are some of the most equipped people to navigate these storms.

Below are practical ways policy administrators can stay grounded and regain hope.

Lean into what’s already established and focus on what you can control.

• You’re prepared for this. Think about the standards, templates, systems, and processes you’ve developed or improved over the years. That’s your foundation.
• Leverage the Policy on Policies. When institutional policies must change quickly, ensure those updates still follow an approved process. If an expedited path doesn’t yet exist, document how decisions are made. Don't be afraid to lean on what you're known for -- consistency. Remind your leadership that how they choose to navigate a challenge today sets precedent for how the institution navigates similar challenges in the future.
• Don't skip documentation. It’s tempting to cut corners when under pressure, but accurate documentation—who was involved, what changed, when, and why—is critical for transparency and accountability.
• This is your bragging right: You know how to write effective policies that create guardrails for legal and ethical decision-making. Broad, well-written policies allow flexibility while ensuring requirements are met. Don’t underestimate how critical that is—especially now.

Celebrate the wins—big and small.

• Some of the changes in this storm are good changes. Think of the Stop Campus Hazing Act. It’s absolute chaos as we sprint towards the deadline, but we're helping create safer, more accountable environments.
• Crisis = Collaboration. Remember how quickly departments rallied during COVID? Urgent challenges often lead to increased cross-campus collaboration, more focused meetings, and stronger shared accountability.
• Tough moments reveal true partners. This moment is also clarifying. Like an outdated policy, it's what was believed to be true, but wasn't, that often causes the damage. In this storm you’ll discover who runs toward collaboration and who puts up walls. You’ll likely find new allies—and maybe feel let down by some familiar faces. Either way, clarity is a gift.

Reevaluate professional skills. You are talented.

• You do more than policy. Whether it’s sending concise yet informative emails, updating web content, coordinating teams, or managing complex changes—you are a multidimensional force with a wide range of skills. Just in case you have a hard time pinpointing these skills, I listed them here for you: adaptability, administrative coordination, attention to detail, change management, collaboration, compliance knowledge, continuous improvement, copyediting, critical thinking, data analysis, data tables/Excel, document management, ethics and discretion, leadership, presentation design, program management, project management, research, risk assessment, strategic planning, technical solution implementation and management, technical writing, time management, written and oral communication, and many more.
• Know your worth. You are valuable regardless of any threats to your values and beliefs that you have to face when you go to work. Continue to be you and find comfort knowing that you are not what is drastically changing.
• Knowing your worth can also mean reassessing your role or institution. It’s an unsettling thought, but it can also reveal new opportunities and affirm personal and professional priorities. With your skills and character, don't let this storm bury you because you're afraid to let go.

Final Reflection: Gratitude for Purposeful Work

This work is hard—but I love it enough that it shakes me to my core when it feels threatened. That’s a gift, because not everyone gets to feel so deeply about what they do.

This storm is a reminder of the value and resilience embedded in the work we do—and the important role we play in guiding our institutions through change.

Policy Development Process

Compliance Change

Getting Ahead of the Game

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

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

Authors: Katie Hamilton, Chief of Staff – Office of the Provost, and Jonathan Hill, MD, PhD, Faculty Training and Development Specialist.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought unique challenges and opportunities to higher education. Like institutions nationwide, faculty and leaders at Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences (Joyce) sought to develop a policy that ensured responsible and ethical student use of the emerging and evolving technology. In this post, we share the process our university took to develop the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy and Procedure for students, and what’s next for AI policy.

Artificial Intelligence Position Statement

Prior to the policy work, a Joyce Artificial Intelligence taskforce contributed to the development of the following statement, which guided the work to follow.

At Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences, we recognize that Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a transformative force with potential to shape the future. As an Institution dedicated to education and innovation, we are committed to harnessing the power of AI in a way that aligns with the University’s mission and vision.

As guided by the University’s values, we will navigate the possibilities that AI presents, striving to create an academic and healthcare education landscape that is inclusive, empowering, and enriched by the responsible and ethical use of AI.

AI Use Policy Development

1. Policy Purpose
   Prior to the AI Use Policy, Joyce faculty observed an uptick in student coursework submitted that reflected the use AI for completion. Without clear guidelines, faculty and administration lacked a complete toolbox to support responsible and ethical student AI use. The taskforce developed the policy to provide clear expectations for students’ acceptable and unacceptable use of AI and an avenue for reporting violations.
   
   
2. Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
   Our policy authors developed guidelines for the acceptable use of AI for student coursework while ensuring faculty remained empowered to guide the use of AI in their courses and to reduce sole dependence on AI percentage reports provided by plagiarism checkers (e.g., Turnitin). The policy outlines three categories of AI use cases: Authorized Use, Unauthorized Use, and Prohibited Use, as summarized below.
   
   
   1. Authorized Use
      • Faculty permission is granted to use AI in the course.
      • Use of AI to edit and/or expand upon student authored work.
      • Use of AI to generate ideas (not content) towards the application of coursework.
      • Use of AI to assist in the organization and collection of research related materials.
        
        
   2. Unauthorized Use
      • Absence of faculty permission to use AI in the course.
      • Absence of student contribution in the coursework.
      • Absence of the acknowledgement of AI use.
        
        
   3. Prohibited Use
      • Input of documents or information proprietary to the University.
      • Input of identifying or confidential information without permission.
        
        
3. Policy Enforcement
   We have had success at Joyce including the AI Use Policy violation reporting within the Student Code of Conduct reporting process to ensure equitable, consistent sanctions and effective support for faculty and students. The authors accomplished policy accountability through the procedure below.
   
   Students that violate the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy will be considered in violation of the Student Code of Conduct Policy, specifically the Academic Integrity Standards, and will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct Policy and Procedure as published in University Catalog.

What’s next for AI Policy at Joyce?

1. AI Use Policy Effectiveness Evaluation
   Joyce recently implemented a policy evaluation process for recently published policies. The AI Use Policy has been in place for a semester and is ready to undergo this evaluation to inform any revisions. Through this evaluation, we will also explore additional AI policy needs, AI governance frameworks, and consider broadening the policy scope to address emerging technologies and applications using AI.
   
   
2. Faculty AI Training and Education
   The Joyce Faculty Academy will begin offering a course on AI in healthcare and education to increase AI literacy at Joyce.

Recognition: A special thank you to the policy authors, Dr. Jonathan Hill, MD, PhD, Faculty Training and Development Specialist, and Tricia Kingsley, Director of Legal Affairs and Associate Counsel, for their commitment to the development of the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy.

Written by: Sarah Ebben, Erin Kennon, and Aaron Seligman

The Universities of Wisconsin is renowned for its dedication to academic excellence and its strategic efforts to enhance student success. Our system of public higher education is comprised of 13 universities statewide: two (2) R1 research universities, one (1) polytechnic university and 10 comprehensive universities. It also includes an administrative arm, Universities of Wisconsin Administration (UWSA), which supports all 13 universities. One initiative at UWSA that has proven invaluable to both administrators and students is the Universities of Wisconsin Higher Education Graduate Fellowship Program.

It is our hope that those of you at ACUPA can utilize this information and run with it! This post was written by our Policy Analyst and Senior Advisor for Academic and Student Affairs, who have helped expand our fellowship program, and one current fellow who works in the Office of Administrative Policies. Below we provide an outline of our program, including which offices utilize a graduate fellow and how the students and supervisors benefit from participating in our program.

What is the Graduate Fellowship Program?

The Graduate Fellowship Program at the Universities of Wisconsin offers graduate students opportunities to apply their academic knowledge and skills in practical, real-world settings within higher education administration. At the inception of the program during the 2020-2021 academic year, fellowship positions were offered in the Office of Administrative Policies, Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of Compliance and Risk Management. These were offices that identified a need for additional work but could not hire additional full-time employees. The program has since expanded into nine different offices, with 10 fellowship positions in the 2024-2025 academic year.

The Fellowship Program currently partners with the following universities and is open to students within specific degree programs with which the program has established a Memoranda of Understanding:

1. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
   • Administrative Leadership: Adult, Continuing, and Higher Education Administrative Program
   • Master of Computer Science
   • Urban Education Doctoral Program
2. University of Wisconsin Whitewater
   • Higher Education Leadership
   • Master of Computer Science
3. University of Wisconsin-Madison
   • Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
   • La Follette School of Public Affairs
   • Master of Business Administration
   • Law School
   • Master of Real Estate
   • Master of Computer Science

During the 2024-2025 academic year, fellowships were available in the following departments and administrative units at UWSA. These offices can change from year to year, and fellowship sites are determined based on need each calendar year. Our Human Resources department handles determining where the need is greatest as they begin the hiring process. We also provided a brief description of the work that UWSA fellows may do, to help give an idea of what a fellow could do for you!

1. Office of Academic and Student Affairs
   The fellow assists with Initiatives that include, among others, program array management, workforce alignment of system programming, dual enrollment, articulation agreements and transfer, open educational resources, high impact practices, undergraduate research, and research administration and compliance.
2. Planning and Budget
   The fellow assists with several real estate projects that arise throughout an average week, such as researching easements, leases, and deeds. Other projects include research into parcels of land that are not being used for the purpose for which they were donated and may be eligible for sale. As UW Institutions engage for-profit real estate developers in public-private partnerships, a fellow could also perform independent financial analysis, develop proformas, undertake peer evaluation and research for various project types.
3. Office of Enrollment and Student Success
   The fellow plays a key role in supporting the ongoing implementation of Direct Admit Wisconsin. Further, this individual provides support to other strategic enrollment initiatives including, dual enrollment, re-enrollment, transfer initiatives, Wisconsin.edu redesign, enrollment-related policies and other outreach and recruitment initiatives.
4. Office of Compliance and Risk Management
   The fellow works on numerous Compliance & Risk Management initiatives, including working with the Chief Compliance Officer on the Civil Dialogue Project, benchmarking against activities of other universities and systems, developing frameworks and guidance, and compiling information for external reports.
5. Office of the General Counsel
   The fellow performs traditional law clerk duties including research, hearing support, advising clients, attending staff meetings, preparing legal trainings, authoring client memos, and in person experiences unique to the practice of higher education law. The fellow also has the ability to work on significant legal projects that sometimes can span the entirety of their fellowship. This unique opportunity allows fellows to see the long-term effect and value of their legal advice and work.
6. Office of Information Security
   The fellow works on projects in a technical capacity focusing on data management, data visualizations, python scripting, and development of application/system/operational dashboards. This work aids in the development of report/charts/presentations that are provided or presented to system/campus leadership for both awareness and decision-making purposes related to Information Security risks.
7. Office of Business and Entrepreneurship (OBE)
   The fellow works with the OBE team to help formalize processes and catalog classes and training held throughout the state. The fellow will also help with curriculum development and learning platform technical expertise to help adopt a learning platform that is customer friendly and accessible to all campus collaborators. OBE’s staff, campus partners and contractors provide non-credit training to about 2,000 Wisconsin citizens annually.
8. Office of Administrative Policies
   The fellow works with policy owners and stakeholders across the system to coordinate the policy development cycle and undertake policy projects, including mapping the interconnections between policies, helping to coordinate system-wide workgroups on policy initiatives, and engaging stakeholders to obtain feedback to refine the policy process.
9. Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration at University of Wisconsin-Madison
   The fellow supports large-scale quantitative and qualitative analyses of institution-wide assessment efforts, while also engaging with the communication of analysis results through written reports and presentations to campus leadership, shared governance, and the campus community. Other projects include supporting cross-functional administrative improvements, collaborating on strategic plan metrics and initiatives, and completing benchmarking analyses of UW-Madison and peer institutions.

In addition to the substantive responsibilities at the fellowships sites, fellows are provided with unique opportunities to further their understanding of higher education and public policy. Fellows attend seminars with national or state higher education leaders within various aspects of higher education. Examples include seminars with vice presidents at the Universities of Wisconsin, associate vice presidents at the Universities of Wisconsin, Board of Regent members, and various chancellors across the universities. Fellows also attend peer-to-peer seminars, and once per year each fellow will research and present on a policy or higher education administration to other fellows in the program. In addition to the seminars, fellows also have the opportunity to attend site visits to various UW universities to further learn about higher education at each campus.

Benefits to Graduate Fellows

The Graduate Fellowship Program offers more than just hands-on experience in our offices; it also provides invaluable personal and professional growth opportunities for graduate students, along with financial support. Throughout the years, our fellows have identified the following key benefits:

1. Career Development
   Graduate fellows gain experience in areas such as leadership, project management, and policy development. Fellows have reported that the opportunity to work with many different colleagues in one office, and the opportunity to work on projects that span across many different offices has been key in their development. For example, our policy fellow often works on projects being led out of the Office of General Counsel, including work on admissions and anti-discrimination practices at campuses.
2. Networking Opportunities
   Fellows build professional connections through our leadership seminars, peer-to-peer seminars, and site visits to different UW campuses. The ability to visit different UW campuses and meet with chancellors is typically the favorite experience that fellows leave with. Fellows may also be offered opportunities to attend conferences and other professional events that directly relate to their fellowship site. The policy fellow attended conferences such as ACUPA and given the opportunity to present during the 2024 conference in Madison!
3. Practical Experience
   The fellowship allows graduate students to apply theoretical knowledge from their coursework to real-world situations, solidifying their learning and boosting their resumes. Fellowships run through the entirety of an academic year, with the potential to continue for a second year. This long-term experience is an unparallelled addition to a resume.
4. Financial support
   Graduate fellows within our program work at a 40%-50% appointment (about 16-20 hours a week). With this appointment, they receive tuition remission*, a stipend and are eligible for some benefits (including access to health and life insurance).

*Certain graduate degree programs are not eligible for tuition remission due to the funding source of the program.

Benefits to the Universities of Wisconsin

The impact of the Graduate Fellowship Program extends beyond the graduate fellows themselves. The Universities of Wisconsin as a whole benefits from the unique perspective and expertise that graduate students bring to the various offices. Some of the key advantages for the Universities of Wisconsin include:

1. Enhanced Efficiency
   Graduate fellows often are assigned tasks that might otherwise be unable to be prioritized by full-time employees, such as managing data, supporting outreach programs, or assisting with administrative duties. A graduate fellow is not the equivalent of an undergraduate intern. Site leaders have emphasized that the quality of work they see from fellows is equivalent to that of a full-time employee. Site leads have also emphasized that the education of their graduate fellows is highly applicable to the work they are doing. Site leaders are confident that they can assign projects or tasks and trust they will receive timely, high-quality, and accurate work in response.
2. Fresh Ideas and Innovation
   Graduate fellows are at the forefront of academic research and emerging trends, bringing fresh ideas to their roles. Having a new, fresh set of eyes on processes throughout the academic year helps ensure that departments stay innovative and forward-thinking, but also can help solve small problems that full-time employees may overlook as part of the routine.
3. Stronger Connection to the Student Community on Campuses
   Graduate fellows not only provide new perspectives, but they provide arguably the most important perspective: the student perspective. Our mission at the Universities of Wisconsin is to best serve our students; by having student voices in our offices, we can help ensure that it is being achieved. Additionally, fellows working in areas like diversity, equity, and student services contribute to fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for all students.

Questions to Consider when Implementing a Fellowship at Your Campus

1. What needs/unmet capacity does your campus have that could be fulfilled with a fellowship opportunity?
   Can a fellow fill a void that cannot be closed with a full-time position? Additionally, is there enough work for them to consistently be occupied for the academic year. Is this work meaningful? Ex: Currently, our policy department is comprised of one(1) FTE and one fellow, making a combined 1.5 FTE. The fellow plays a key role in assisting the full-time policy analyst with the day-to-day work.
2. Will the fellows be paid, given credit, offered tuition remission or some combination?
   Because fellows are graduate students, cost of living is often a very big concern for them. Many universities have specific policies that lay out requirements or restrictions for assistantships and fellowships regarding compensation and benefits. Is there enough in the budget to fund this opportunity?
3. How would a fellowship program be funded?
   Funding models could include central support using a pooled resource model, or departments who are utilizing the fellowship program could be responsible for the costs. A combination of central and department funding may also be an option. Funding could also come from Federal or State grant programs that agencies may provide in specific fields. Universities could also partner with private industry, non-profits or other partners to fund the fellowship programs. The funding model would be highly dependent on the resources available at each institution.
4. How will fellows be recruited and hired? Are there specific degree programs that may train students in skills that would be valuable to your office?
   We have slowly expanded the number of degree programs in which our fellowships are offered. We recommend starting small, with degree programs that directly relate to the work being done in your office (Business Schools, Public Affairs/Public Policy Schools, Education Schools) and expanding as the program grows. This way you can ensure that fellows have an interest in the work being done, and that their skills are applicable. Additionally, you will want to consider how the hiring process will go. Will the hiring be centralized, or will each office be responsible?
5. Who will supervise the fellows?
   Our HR department currently handles the recruitment, hiring, and general organization of the Fellowship Program, including scheduling of seminars and professional development. Site leaders are asked to be involved in the selection of fellows, and then the day-to-day work being done. Our fellows typically work very closely with one person in the office who is the designated site lead. While they are doing work for the entire office, this lead is responsible for delegating the work to the fellow and ensuring that the fellow is set up to succeed in completing their tasks. Would the staff of departments with a fellow have adequate bandwidth to provide appropriate supervision, support and feedback.
6. What kind of professional development can you offer?
   A key draw for our fellowship program is the different types of professional development that are offered. Many graduate students are just getting their foot in the door in their future careers and a fellowship offers them the perfect opportunity to both learn and network. Would a fellow be able to interact with others outside of their assigned office?

A Look to the Future

The Universities of Wisconsin Higher Education Graduate Fellowship Program has proven to be a successful model that integrates graduate student talent into the fabric of university and administration operations. As the program continues to evolve, it holds the potential to play an even greater role in shaping the future of the Universities of Wisconsin. By providing graduate students with opportunities to engage meaningfully in higher education administration, the system fosters a culture of collaboration, innovation, and community building that will benefit the next generation of students, staff, and faculty.

In a rapidly changing higher education landscape, initiatives like the Universities of Wisconsin Higher Education Graduate Fellowship Program are key to ensuring that higher education administration remains adaptable, resourceful, and student-centered. As graduate fellows continue to contribute to a wide range of offices, they’re not only enhancing their own careers- but they’re also helping to build stronger, more resilient institutions that will serve generations of students to come.

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, Prairie View A&M University, or the Texas A&M University System.

In a world where rebellion often takes center stage, fostering a culture of compliance may seem like an arduous task. However, just as a thrill-seeker's excitement diminishes when confronted with the dangers of a reckless stunt, the allure of defiance fades when confronted with real risks in the workplace. These risks can evoke feelings of uncertainty, fear, and vulnerability among employees.

Here are seven best practices to cultivate a culture of compliance:

1. Lead by Example

Set the tone from the top! When leaders prioritize and adhere to policies, they set a powerful example for the entire organization. Actions speak louder than words, fostering feelings of trust and security among employees. Remember, if the boss shows up to the meeting wearing a helmet because of "safety first," everyone else might just follow suit--literally.

2. Clear Communication

Enhance clarity! Ensure that policies and procedures are clearly communicated to all employees. Ambiguity breeds confusion and can lead to unintentional violations, causing feelings of frustration and disillusionment. Make your policies crystal clear because deciphering a policy shouldn't require a degree in ancient hieroglyphics!

3. Provide Resources and Support

Give it to them! Make it easy for employees to comply with policies by providing them with necessary resources and support. Access to training materials, compliance tools, and dedicated support staff fosters feelings of empowerment and capability. Equip your team with the tools they need to comply with policies, because expecting them to build a rocket ship with duct tape and a prayer won't fly.

4. Reward Compliance

Use incentives! Recognize and reward employees who demonstrate a commitment to compliance. Whether through formal recognition programs, praise in team meetings, or other incentives, acknowledging and celebrating compliance reinforces its importance and encourages continued adherence. Make it fun by having a "Compliance Champion of the Month" trophy. It's like the Oscars but for following rules!

5. Regular Monitoring and Review

Make it a routine! Implement systems for monitoring and reviewing compliance regularly. This ensures that policies remain relevant and effective, alleviating feelings of uncertainty and promoting a sense of stability. Think of compliance monitoring like watering a plant—do it regularly, or things start to get wilted and sad. And trust me, nobody likes a sad policy plant.

6. Encourage Open Dialogue

Speak up! Foster a culture where employees feel comfortable raising concerns or questions about policies. Addressing concerns promptly and transparently fosters feelings of trust and inclusivity, ensuring that everyone's voices are heard and valued. Got a question about a policy? Don't be shy! It's like that old saying goes: "There's no such thing as a stupid question, just a really confused policy."

7. Continuous Training and Development

Train, Train, Train! Implement ongoing training and development programs to keep employees informed about changes in policies and regulations. Investing in continuous learning demonstrates a commitment to employee growth and well-being, fostering feelings of support and confidence. Keep your team's policy knowledge fresh and up to date because nobody wants to be the office policy equivalent of a flip phone in a smartphone world.

By incorporating these seven best practices into your organization's approach to compliance, you can create a workplace culture where policy adherence is not only expected but celebrated. Let's make compliance as simple as potting a plant because when everyone is up to their elbows in dirt and the end result is a collective green thumb, the whole organization can move forward with confidence and integrity.

Cheryle signing off… It’s okay to laugh at policy.

How the Policy Office Benefits from Interns

Some of the ways our office benefits from interns are:

• Eliminating backlogged projects and administrative tasks
  
• Utilizing unique and invaluable perspectives
  
• Understanding what students are experiencing and thinking
• Fostering potential future employment relationships

The interns we have hired from UVU’s editing program came trained in the use of The Chicago Manual of Style, in the science of proofreading, and in the art and craft of editing. Those we hired from our political science program came with data and research skills for which our editors may not have been trained.

Our interns leave our office a better place. Here are some examples:

• Two political science interns helped us develop a format for policy research briefs; these briefs were designed in mind with the time demands placed on university leadership. These interns also helped us standardize our policy research procedures.
  
  
• One editorial intern graduated and became our first full-time editor. She introduced many major improvements into our business processes, such as the concept of policy mapping and moving many manual processes onto MS Teams/SharePoint.
  
  
• Another editorial intern assisted our senior editor with developing our writer’s guide.

Designing Your Internship Program

Finding Your Intern

Making the Most of the Internship for the Student and Your Office

What Do Interns Leave Our Office With?

Most of our interns go on to careers in editing and writing. Some have gone on into policy work in other fields.

Contributing to the University’s Educational Mission

What are the Definitions of Any Technical Terms Involved?

Who's Responsible and What are They Responsible For?

State regulations specify required actions when wildfire smoke affects outdoor air quality at five different AQI values and action levels. WSU had to determine which administrative offices would be responsible for managing and performing the various actions needed to deal with smoke events:

• Campus Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) offices: Monitoring air quality; notifying departments/units, workers, and students by email of air quality risks; and providing applicable information resources.
• Campus Facilities Services offices: Operating facility heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to reduce indoor PM 2.5 concentrations whenever feasible; work with building occupants to keep all windows, doors, and other exterior openings closed as much as possible.
• Research and Extension Centers (RECs): Notifying REC facilities, farms, and workers of air quality, risks, and applicable information resources.
• Departments/Units: Enforcing the policy; establishing effective methods of communicating air quality risk notifications to workers who don't have access to email.

What Actions are Required?

Why is Wildfire Smoke Exposure a Concern?

Creating Your Own Policy

If you work in higher education then you have meetings. Lots of meetings. Long meetings, unproductive meetings, meetings about meetings. Don’t be part of the meeting problem, be part of the solution!

You may not be able to control how someone else runs a meeting, but if you’re the host, you can follow a few tips to ensure that when your meeting is over, the participants aren’t running for the hills or sound asleep.

The point of a meeting is to have a conversation about an issue or topic and come to a decision. Sometimes there are multiple topics and multiple decisions to be made. As the meeting organizer, you are the facilitator of the conversation and the guide leading the participants toward the decision.

Give Them Something to Talk About

Ahead of the meeting, send out the agenda and include whatever it is that is up for discussion. Whether that’s a policy draft, a project timeline, a list of goals, a link to related information, etc. It’s easier for the conversation to get going when there is something participants can react to. This allows the meeting to get right to the point, rather than waste time waiting for everyone to read a draft or review information. It also lets everyone know ahead of time how many topics are on the agenda.

Be Observant

Pay attention to who is talking and who isn’t talking. If the meeting is in person, watch how participants react to what is being said. If someone seems to squirm in their chair or cringe, ask them what they think. They may have a useful counter opinion.

If the meeting is online, watch for people to mark their hand raised and be sure to call on them. You may have to cut someone off who jumps in without raising their hand, but you can do so politely. Keep the chat window open in case anything gets added there that needs to be brought to everyone’s attention. If you don’t think you can do all those things at once, elect someone to watch the chat for you.

Watch the Clock

In addition to paying attention to the participants, pay attention to the time. Keep your agenda in front of you so you can see what is left to discuss. If the conversation is going on longer than you expected, but is productive, you may have to save one of the agenda items for another meeting. Conversely, be willing to end the meeting early if the discussion didn’t take the full time. If the conversation is straying off topic, it’s your job to let everyone know when it’s time to move to the next item.

Consider what can be accomplished offline. When time runs short, be flexible about what has to get done in the meeting and what can be done via email or shared documents outside of the meeting.

Listen

Just because you called the meeting, doesn’t mean you have to talk the whole time. As I said before, I see a meeting as a conversation. If all you want to do is present information, that doesn’t necessarily require a meeting. Gathering people together implies you want to hear what they have to say. As organizer, you pose the questions and then sit back and listen.

Know When to Step In

Sometimes one participant dominates the conversation or has an unending supply of questions. While you don’t want to skip over that person or ignore them, you may have to rein them in. A few ways of doing that are to say something like, “I hear you saying (briefly summarize their point), does anyone else want to comment?” You can cut in with, “Joe/Susie/whoever has had their hand raised for a while now, let’s hear what they have to say.” If the end of the monologue is nowhere in sight, you can interrupt the participant and let them know you’d be happy to talk with them offline, but that you need to keep the meeting going.

If time is running short and people’s hands are still raised, you need to decide whether to end the discussion and call for a decision or table the decision for next time. Either of those options is better than letting the meeting run long.

Take What You Can Get

Sometimes a final decision can’t be reached in the meeting. Instead, look for action items that will move the issue forward. If more research is needed, ask for a volunteer or assign the task to someone. If the document needs to reflect suggested edits from the meeting, have the scribe (which might be you) make the edits and send the document back out before the next meeting. If there isn’t a next meeting on the calendar, try to set one up while everyone is there. Often, that is easier than trying to get everyone to give you their availability via email or polling.

Follow-Up

When the meeting results in action items, it’s helpful to send an email to the participants afterwards with a list of who is doing what and when it is due. If several people missed the meeting and there was important information they will need before the next meeting, provide a summary or minutes that everyone can access. This allows you to post the information once for everyone to read, rather than wasting time at the beginning of the next meeting bringing everyone up to speed.

What things do you do to ensure your meetings are purposeful and productive?

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:

1. Broad-Based Engagement: Include a wide array of perspectives in policy discussions. This includes staff, faculty, students, and the board or senate.

2. Cultural Competency Training: Equip everyone involved in policy development with the skills to understand and appreciate diversity.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. Workshops and Training: Regularly conduct workshops to educate stakeholders on policy processes and their roles. This fosters a sense of ownership and accountability.

3. 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.

4. 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! 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of ACUPA, Prairie View A&M University, or the Texas A&M University System. The author does not receive any financial incentive for purchases made through the link included in this post.

The Association of College/University Policy Administrators (ACUPA) is the leading professional organization dedicated to supporting and empowering policy administrators in the field of higher education. With a wide range of benefits designed to enhance career growth and development, ACUPA is an invaluable resource for professionals looking to make a lasting impact on their institutions and the students they serve.

ACUPA membership provides access to a nationwide network of policy experts, facilitating meaningful connections, collaboration, and the sharing of best practices. Through engaging events, webinars, and online discussion forums, members can stay at the forefront of the latest trends and challenges in higher education policy.

In addition to networking opportunities, ACUPA offers a wealth of resources to keep members informed and equipped to make data-driven decisions. These include exclusive access to research, policy briefs, and professional development materials tailored to the unique needs of college/university policy administrators.

ACUPA also serves as a powerful advocate for the profession, ensuring that the voices of policy administrators are heard throughout the industry. By joining ACUPA, members become part of a collective effort to shape the future of higher education and create positive change for students and institutions alike.

For those committed to excellence in college/university policy administration, ACUPA membership is an essential investment in career growth and success. If you aren’t already a member, join today and unlock a world of opportunities to elevate your skills, expand your network, and make a lasting difference in the field of higher education policy.

In our role as policy professionals, we routinely deal with complex processes and subject matter outside our immediate span of control. We may likely find ourselves depending on the efforts of key partners to accomplish parts of the work. We may also recognize, all too clearly, that policy development is a collaborative and cross-functional effort involving others over whom we may have no actual authority. If policy making is a team sport comprised of players from distinct silos within the organization, how then do we most effectively engage the team resources for the policy program?

Following are three superpowers that may be utilized to harness the power of a cross-functional team for the policy office, especially when dependent on informal influence rather than direct formal authority to accomplish tasks.

The Power of Relationships

Build trust and relationships with key organizational stakeholders

Relationships provide the secret sauce to get things done. Determine the key partners to your work who are outside your span of control and intentionally seek them out. Build mutually beneficial alliances to support the policy work.

The Power of Clarity

Establish role clarity within the policy process

Although we are partners in the policy process, our roles will vary. Ensure your partners are clear on what you are asking of them and when it is needed, as well as how it supports their interests.

The Power of Culture

Understand the culture of your organization

Knowing the informal conventions about how things work and what is valued in your particular environment provides the crucial context around how to get things done most effectively and avoid missteps. Develop keen organizational awareness.

Through these avenues of influence, we may create a pathway for cross-functional collaboration that allows us to accomplish and maintain outcomes beyond our immediate office resources. We activate expanded assets within the organization for the policy work by leveraging our influence.

When I was asked to contribute a blog post for this month, I thought, “Sure! No problem! I love to write!” Then I sat down to really put pen to paper, and I was…stumped. What should I write about? And then it came to me, and I dusted off my two-year-old dissertation for inspiration.

When I began to pursue my doctorate quite a few years ago, I wasn’t sure what to research. Then I met a colleague at a conference, and she told me that research is just “me-search.” And so, my quest to figure out policy implementation started. As a Title IX Coordinator at a small private college with an 85% female student population, I dealt with pregnant students on a regular basis. Part of my job was to help develop education plans for students who were preparing to give birth and needed to finish their courses, and this meant working directly with faculty to implement our institution’s pregnant student policy. Our policy was written with the help of higher education attorneys and reviewed every two years. It was concise, to the point, legally sound, and only about two pages long. It was approved by our executive staff at the college as well as our board of trustees, published on our website, made available to new employees and students during orientations, and generally accepted by all who read or reviewed it.

So, what was the problem? Or as we say in the world of dissertation research, what was the problem statement? We had a great policy, but implementing it was a different story. And as my research showed, implementation is where the trouble usually arises. I found that I wasn’t the only one having difficulties implementing pregnant student policy, especially regarding leaves of absence and attendance accommodations. In the increasing number of Title IX violations at institutions of higher education over the last ten years, faculty were key in determining institutional actions regarding pregnancy policy and practice. So, I went about figuring out more about the faculty experience with implementing pregnant student policy, and here is what I discovered. The people who are closest to the issue, in this instance, the faculty, use their discretion to determine institutional actions—effectively, they implement the policy.

I won’t bore you with the details of all 119 pages of my dissertation, but I will share this with you. The development of the policy is just the beginning. Here are my pro tips on implementing policy:

• Educate and train all stakeholders on the policy
• Engage subject matter experts within the institution to assist in the implementation process
• Don’t underestimate the importance of shared governance and academic freedom when faculty are closest to the issue and ultimately responsible for implementing the policy

Building a policy program, developing policies, reviewing and revising policies, and keeping up on all the changes in laws and regulations that pertain to higher education are all vital parts of policy administration. However, the work is not done even when the best policy is developed and approved—it’s just beginning. The purpose of any policy is to guide and determine actions, and those actions do things like protect the rights of employees and students and guarantee access to education. Actions that result from policies are important, so don’t forget the implementation part.

Factors WSU Included in Our Policy

Applicability -- We thought it advisable to clearly outline both what/who the policy applies to and what/who the policy does not apply to, in order to limit confusion and questions.

Definitions -- We included definitions of applicable terms used throughout the policy including, but not limited to:

• Abuse or neglect of minors; 
• Adequate supervision; 
• Authorized adult or program staff; and 
• Bullying.
  

Roles and Responsibilities -- We included:

• Roles and responsibilities for the program and authorized adults;
• Responsibilities of non-university organizations and entities; 
• Rights and responsibilities of minors, including: 
• Immunization requirements, 
• Disability accommodations, and 
• Prohibited actions.
  

Requirements -- We included requirements regarding:

• Program registration;
  
• Participant registration;
  
• Authorized and program staff training and conduct;
  
• Screening and background checks;
  
• Adequate supervision of minors;
  
• Overnight campus activities involving minors; 
  
• Transportation involving minors;
  
• Education for minor visitors and their parents;
  
• Reasonable accommodations and medication management; 
  
• Specific requirements for minors participating in higher risk activities; 
  
• Reporting; and 
  
• Addressing reports of abuse or neglect.

References and Resources -- Our administration asked us to provide links to reporting forms and templates provided through our Compliance and Risk Management office, as well as links to other existing WSU policies regarding minor dependent children and minor volunteers.

Responsible Offices and Enforcement -- As you are all likely very aware, easy access to the offices to contact for concerns and assistance is a key factor in user compliance with any policy. And as with any policy, affirming regular review of the policy and providing a description of what administrative bodies or personnel are responsible is also important for risk reduction.

Additional Requirements for Minors Involved in Research Activities

In keeping with the missions of education and outreach at research colleges and universities, persons under 18 years of age may occasionally be allowed to enter research or teaching laboratories for educational or research purposes.

However, there are strict federal and state limits on the amounts and types of chemical, biological, and radioactive substances that minors may be exposed to. As WSU is a research university with schools of medicine and global animal health, a nuclear reactor, and a wide variety of other research activities, we added a supplemental appendix to EP14 to outline the applicable regulations and requirements applicable to minors in our laboratories.

Your Policy on Protecting Minors

In today's litigious environment, we policy administrators help to protect our institutions by advising on and facilitating the development of policies to help reduce the many risks that may arise. I hope what I've shared from the WSU perspective helps you start or continue your own conversations about developing or revising a policy for protecting minors who may participate in activities and programs at your institution.

Shifting from a career as a courtroom lawyer to one in higher education policies can be a challenging yet rewarding experience. This blog post explores the differences between law and policy and how they relate to higher education. I also discuss the differences for those working in the legal and policy fields and some tips to keep in mind for those making the transition.

Defining law and policy

First, let’s define the terms law and policy. The law is a set of rules and regulations that govern society. Policy is a set of principles that guide decision-making within an organization.

Are law and policy really so different?

One of the key differences between law and policy is the level of detail. The law is very specific and prescriptive, while policy is more general and flexible. In a criminal context, think of the law as a checklist. If defendants meet all the conditions spelled out in the law, they are “guilty.” If one or more conditions are unmet, they are “not guilty.” Laws are generally reactionary: someone at some point in history did something that society deemed terrible, and society responded by creating a law to warn future individuals against doing the same terrible thing and to punish them if they commit the act. As there is a wealth of bad behavior in the world, the number of laws that attempt to control bad behavior have steadily grown in number.

In higher education, institutions often develop policies to address specific, recurring issues or challenges facing the institution or as pre-emptive answers for anticipated questions. For example, a policy might be developed to address improper relationships between employees and students or diversity and inclusion issues either in response to, or in anticipation of their existence. Policies are drafted to be forward-thinking to prevent unintended consequences and get everyone on the same page in terms of goals, limits, and expectations.

Bark versus bite and the enforceability problem

Another difference between law and policy is the level of enforcement. Laws and policies are only as effective as they are enforced, but the goals of those enforcing the laws and policies may vary.

Laws are written by elected officials, whether at the federal, state, or local level, but are enforced by government agencies that exist solely to enforce the laws. In theory, laws are meant to be applied equally to all individuals, but in practice this is not always the case. Punishments for breaking laws are meant to be punitive and discourage future violations. Changing a law in any way, even to prevent a future miscarriage of justice, requires the full legislative process, which naturally takes a substantial period of time.

This substantially long revision process, coupled with the fact that the “law of the day” must be applied to any illegal act, can create severe consequences and equity issues. Take for example a criminal charge for possession of a small amount of recreational marijuana. Washington state voters approved Initiative 502 to legalize possession of up to one ounce of recreational marijuana on November 6, 2012, but the law didn’t go into effect until December 6, 2012. People arrested for possession of recreational marijuana prior to November 6, 2012, were clearly intended to be found guilty of Washington’s existing possession laws. But what if they’d been arrested between November 6 and December 5, 2012? Unfortunately, the “law of the day” governs, and a person arrested on December 5 would be treated as guilty under the law, even though everyone knew that the following day the law would change, and that the charged behavior would no longer be illegal. Of course, not every prosecutor would choose to pursue cases of this nature, thus creating an obvious equity issue.

On the other hand, policies are enforced by the organization that created the policy. At UNC-Chapel Hill, policies are created and enforced by the university unit—whether a college, school, department, or office. UNC-Chapel Hill policies outline consequences for violations, but are generally not meant to be punitive. Instead, policy documents are meant to increase awareness, and consequences are intended to correct behavior and prevent reoccurrence. This means that policies can be more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, but more difficult to enforce than laws. If a policy has unintended consequences, the university unit can immediately choose whether to enforce its policy and may amend the policy document to prevent future unintended consequences. Adjustments to existing policies can generally be done quite quickly, especially when there is a collaborative feedback process in which stakeholders can raise awareness of problems and bring potential solutions to the table for a speedy resolution.

The big transition

If you are considering a career shift from law to policies in higher education, there are several things to keep in mind. Many of the skills you have acquired practicing in the legal field will still serve you well in a career in higher education policy, but there are also additional skills you will need to develop.

1. Focus on the big picture: As a lawyer, you are used to focusing on the details of a case. While you probably have a caseload with many cases, each case operates independently from the others. However, when working on policies in higher education, it’s important to focus on the big picture. You will need to see how different policies fit together and how they impact the entire institution to prevent duplication and conflict.
2. Take your advocacy hat off: As an attorney, you view the laws in a light most favorable to your client. You cherry-pick legal rulings to support your position and try to refute any that don’t support your position. The position you hold for one client might be contrary to a position you hold for another. Policy is different. A good policy is built from a position of neutrality where the policy means the same thing to everyone; this includes the policy creator, the institution, and the intended audience, whether employees, staff, students, or faculty. The goal is for everyone to understand and follow the policy.
3. Develop your analytical skills: Working in policies in higher education requires a strong analytical skill set. You will need to be able to analyze data, identify trends, and make recommendations based on your findings. This requires a different set of skills than those you use as a lawyer, where every case is a fresh start. In higher education policy, you will conduct peer institution research and use this information to improve your institution’s policy documents. You will receive feedback from units about a policy document, and you will have to consider if and how to respond to that feedback based on your analysis.
4. Be prepared to work collaboratively: Policies in higher education are often developed collaboratively, with input from various stakeholders. You will need to work effectively with faculty, staff, students, and administrators to create policies that meet the institution's needs. Without a majority, and in some cases, unanimous support for a policy, that policy may not see the light of day. Legal settings are more adversarial even when they’re meant to be collaborative, like drug treatment courts, mental health courts, or diversion programs. In those specialty courts everyone works together until they can’t, in which case disputes are resolved the old-fashioned way with a decision made by a judge.
5. Be adaptable: Policies in higher education are constantly evolving, and you will need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. This may require you to be flexible in your approach and willing to try new things. If a policy creates unintended consequences, policy creators and relevant stakeholders can adjust the policy. This can frequently be done quickly, especially when there’s buy-in from fellow collaborators who recognize the problems and solutions. In contrast, lawyers must follow the law, even when a law seems unjust, until the law is changed. Unfortunately, that’s not something you can readily count on.
6. Communicate effectively: Effective communication is critical when working on policies in higher education. You will need to be able to communicate complex ideas to various stakeholders, including faculty, staff, students, and administrators. This requires strong written and verbal communication skills you have undoubtedly acquired in your legal career. However, unlike the law, where you keep your cards close to your chest, policy-making in higher education is where all the cards are on the table. You can share your concerns and be candid about potential conflicts. Being transparent is a good way to earn and maintain trust in your relationships with stakeholders across the campus.
7. Be patient: Developing new policies in higher education can be a slow process. It may take time to get buy-in from stakeholders and to see the impact of your work. Be patient and persistent and remember that change takes time. Not all policy creation is slow, especially when there is widespread support, but many higher education policies are designed to follow the academic calendar to avoid changing things in the middle of the semester. This creates a speed bump in the process that you are unlikely to avoid. This differs from the law, where emergency hearings, temporary restraining orders, and arrest warrants can be done on any day the court is open, which is most of the time.

Shifting from a career as a lawyer to working in policies in higher education has shown me the similarities and differences between the fields. While there are differences between law and policy, like advocating for a client and the fast pace of courtroom life, both fields require critical thinking, problem solving, and effective communication. What could be more rewarding than that?

To kick off 2024, the Blog Committee shares some of the articles they have been reading related to policy administration in higher education.

Academic Integrity

A Brief Guide to How Colleges Adjudicate Plagiarism Cases
By Beth McMurtrie, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 3, 2024

Administration

3 policy developments college leaders should keep an eye on this year
By Natalie Schwarz, Higher Ed Dive, January 10, 2024

Biden admin dives into next round of higher education regulations
By Michael Stratford, Politico Weekly Education Newsletter, January 8, 2024

Education Dept. Outlines Possible Changes in Accreditation, Distance Education, Other Rules
By Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed, January 3, 2024

AI

Creating an AI Policy for Your Marketing Communications Team
By Georgy Cohen, Inside Higher Ed, January 9, 2024

How Will Copyright Law and Plagiarism Change in the Age of GenAI?
By Dan Lohrmann, Government Technology, January 8, 2024

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

After Months of Political Pressure and a Failed Vote, Wisconsin’s Regents Approve Deal on DEI
By Erin Gretzinger, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 14, 2023

Better integration policies for international students needed at universities
By Benjamin Maiangwa, University Affairs, October 10, 2023

Judge suspends adoption of pro-Palestinian policy by McGill student union
By Jesse Feith, The Montreal Gazette, November 22, 2023

University of Rochester Creates New Digital Accessibility Policy
By news staff of Government Technology, January 5, 2024

University principal slams Quebec’s proposed French language policy
By Isaac Lamoureux, True North, December 24, 2023

UPEI releases 5-year plan for fixing problems highlighted in scathing review
By Carolyn Ryan, CBC, January 3, 2024

Will New House Bill Help Pregnant Students?
By Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed, January 9, 2024

Free Speech

Can a simple procedural reform fix universities’ speech policies?
By John Hasnas, The Hill, December 29, 2023

Institutional neutrality policy adopted at Laurentian University
By Heidi Ulrichsen, Sudbury.com, December 31, 2023

The Ford government is ignoring its own campus free speech policy
By Creso Sá, University Affairs, November 28, 2023

Human Resources

DOL independent contractor final rule announced, will take effect March 11
By Ryan Golden, Higher Ed Dive, January 10, 2024

Illinois becomes third state to enact paid time off for all workers
By Lauren Warnecke, WGLT.org, January 4, 2024

These universities have embraced remote work—and they’re seeing some big wins
By Alcino Donadel, University Business, October 10, 2023

'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.

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

Ten Benefits of the Perfect Policies™ Approach

5 Obstacles to Policy Approval: How to Craft a Good, Approvable Policy

What Does Policy Actually Mean, Anyway?

Identifying, minimizing, and controlling exposures to loss are important functions for all institutions.  Most of you have already implemented a risk management policy for your college or university, or are in the process of developing or updating one.

My institution, Washington State University (WSU), published an administrative Policy on Risk Management (EP6) in January 2019.  In August 2023, we finalized a revision to EP6 which included a number of new approaches for overseeing this process that I thought I'd share for your consideration.

Enterprise Type—Campus or System

WSU has multiple campuses in various parts of the state, plus an online (global) campus.  For many years, our Pullman campus was our main administrative hub.  A few years ago, the administration decided to move to a systemwide management model, with each campus, including our flagship Pullman campus, led by a separate campus chancellor, who in turn reports to our system president. 

Some administrative functions are best served by specific campus oversight, and some are best served by systemwide oversight.  International standards encourage an enterprise (systemwide) approach to risk management.  WSU follows International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31000: 2018—Risk Management Guidelines to identify potential obstacles or occurrences that could threaten an enterprise's ability to meet its mission and goals.

Enterprise Risk Management Software

The state of Washington also encourages an enterprise approach to risk management by state agencies, of which WSU is one.  To facilitate this, the Washington Department of Enterprise Services (DES) provides software modules to the risk management offices at all state agencies to assist with risk identification and rating, risk controls, and planning for managing risks.  The software that DES selected to distribute is the Origami risk management information system. The software platform integrates insurance, risk, safety, and compliance solutions.

I found this addition to our policy rather fascinating, as I'm a fan of tech solutions.  Since the software is distributed directly to our RM office only, little direct information was put into our executive policy.  If you're interested in investigating this further, go to the link above to get more information from the manufacturer's website.

Administrative Oversight

WSU decided to implement a four-level approach to administrative oversight of risk management:

1. Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC):  RMEC is a presidential committee that provides executive oversight for enterprise and operational risk. It oversees the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process. RMEC also provides guidance to the Risk Management Advisory Group (RMAG) and Risk Management (RM) office.
   
2. Risk Management Advisory Group (RMAG): RMAG is appointed by our Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration. Its membership is representative of system units engaged in daily risk management. Units may request to join RMAG through the Risk Management Office.
   
3. Risk Management Office (RM): The RM office at WSU is a part of Compliance and Risk Management under Finance and Administration. RM coordinates and evaluates the risk management program for the WSU system and has responsibility and authority in four primary areas:
• Risk awareness, assessment, and assistance services to units and personnel;
• Coordination of systemwide risk committees;
• Managing and administering insurance coverages and related services to units; and,
• Reporting risks, accidents, injuries, liabilities, and other risk management activities to university departments and applicable state and federal agencies.


4. Individuals and Units: Individual employees, departments, and units are responsible for taking steps to reduce the risk of injury and accidental loss to the greatest extent possible, consistent with carrying out the institution's mission and goals. RM is available to provide assistance to individuals and units, as needed.

Every institution handles risk management processes differently, but as we've all found, it is a good idea to formalize a policy for managing risks.  I hope what I've shared from the WSU perspective helps you start or continue your own conversations about developing or revising risk management at your institution.

Is there such a thing as too many policies? How many is enough? The answers to these questions vary by institution and depend on the type of college, how many students attend, whether research is conducted, how many campuses make up the university, and what fields of study are offered. A commonality among all institutions, regardless of demographics, is the purpose policies serve. Some policies fulfill a legal, accrediting, or agency requirement, which means they need to remain in your library for as long as the requirement is in place. Other policies provide consistency in the way a particular issue is managed or addressed across the institution. Policies that fit this description help the college/university community know what to expect, regardless of their role. Lastly, policies may be used to manage enterprise-wide risks or operational efficiencies. When you need to get everyone on the same page, a policy can serve as the source document for stipulating conditions, limitations, and authority for making decisions.

Policies are meant to be read and used. A library that has so many policies that the common user doesn’t know where to start is not very useful. When a policy is read only by the office that wrote it, the message isn’t conveyed to the people who need it.

Most policy programs include a review cycle every three to five years to ensure that policies stay current. Consider including the option to eliminate a policy as part of that review. A few reasons that may warrant the withdrawal of a policy include:

1. A history of making exceptions to the policy;
2. Provisions that are tied to the availability of funds, meaning that individual offices and departments choose whether or not to utilize the policy;
3. Stipulations that are optional;
4. Requirements that are not value-added, and may go so far as to present an administrative burden; or
5. Conditions that are contrary to your institution’s culture and/or mission.

When you come across a policy that meets one or more of the above, it may mean that the policy needs to be reworked. For example, eligibility requirements may need to be changed or some of the limitations may need to be lifted. But it might also mean that you don’t need the policy at all. Don’t be afraid to toss it out.

Understanding the Audience

Before setting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard), it's imperative to identify and understand your target audience. Universities consist of various stakeholders including faculty members, administrators, students, funding bodies, and the wider community. Each group may have different levels of familiarity with the subject matter, so tailoring your content to match their level of expertise is crucial.

For instance, a policy brief aimed at university administrators might focus on the practical implications of a proposed policy, while a communication document for students might emphasize the benefits and relevance of the policy to their academic experience. By understanding the needs and expectations of your audience, you can tailor your document to resonate with them effectively.

“The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you.” (Arnstein 1969, 216)

Social accountability in policy writing can be achieved through mechanisms such as consultations, general feedback mechanisms, and collaboration with internal or external organizations. Social accountability mechanisms provide early warning systems for potential issues or unintended consequences. Identifying challenges early on allows policymakers to make necessary adjustments before problems escalate.

Clarity, Conciseness and Planning

In a university environment, where research and ideas can be complex, it's easy to get lost in technical jargon and intricate details. However, the hallmark of an effective accompanying document is clarity and conciseness. Avoid overwhelming your readers with excessive information. Instead, distill the key points, supporting evidence, and implications into a format that is easily digestible.

Use clear, straightforward language to explain concepts and avoid unnecessary jargon. Bullet points, headings, and subheadings can help break up the content and guide readers through the document smoothly. Remember, the goal is not to showcase your vocabulary, but to effectively convey your message.

Structure and Visual Appeal

A well-structured document is easier to navigate and comprehend. Begin with a concise introduction that outlines the purpose and scope of the document. Follow this with the main content, organized logically with headings and subheadings. Each section should flow naturally, guiding the reader through your argument or proposal.

Visual elements such as graphs, charts, and infographics can enhance the clarity of your document by presenting data in a more digestible format. However, ensure that these visuals are relevant, clear, and properly labeled.

Evidence-Based Content

Tailored Tone and Style

Engagement, Call to Action and Timing

Engagement is key to the success of any communication. Encourage readers to actively consider your proposal, policy, or message. Pose questions that prompt reflection or suggest potential actions they can take. A clear call to action will help guide readers on how to respond or engage further.

In briefing documents by specifying dates, policymakers can allocate resources effectively. This prevents resource shortages or over-allocations, leading to efficient use of funds, personnel, and other resources. Clear timelines enable policymakers to communicate expectations that help in structuring the planning and coordination of policy activities. Certain policies may have legal or regulatory obligations associated with them, such as reporting deadlines or compliance milestones. Clear timelines help ensure that these obligations are met to avoid legal repercussions.

Collaboration and Feedback

In a university environment, collaboration often leads to richer and more well-rounded ideas. Seek feedback from colleagues, mentors, and peers to ensure that your document is clear, impactful, and well-received. Constructive feedback can help refine your content and catch any blind spots you might have missed.

Policies affect diverse groups of people with varying needs and perspectives. Engaging with a wide range of stakeholders ensures that policies are inclusive and consider the interests of marginalized and vulnerable populations. This approach leads to more equitable outcomes and reduces the risk of overlooking crucial aspects of policy implementation.

Mastering the message is a critical element and creating accompanying documents such as policy briefs and communications materials in a university environment is an art that requires careful consideration of audience, clarity, structure, evidence, and engagement. By mastering these elements, you can effectively communicate complex ideas, drive meaningful conversations, and contribute to positive changes within your university community.

A strong plan and timely implementation enhance public confidence in the policy writer, and sometimes the University’s ability to deliver on its promises. So, whether you're a researcher, student, or administrator, honing your skills in crafting impactful documents is an asset for success in academia and beyond. In the words of Steve Jobs, “Master the Topic, The Message, and The Delivery.”

ACUPA’s Blog Committee would like to take this opportunity to reintroduce members to our blog, Policy Matters ! Policy Matters launched in 2018 taking the place of ACUPAexchange , a triannual newsletter publication. The original purpose of the blog was to address the needs of our members and maximize the efficiency of our processes. To highlight the efforts of current and past Blog Committee members, as well as volunteer contributors, all posts published since the inception of the blog have been organized alphabetically into categories based on theme and are linked below for easy access.

ACUPA (General)

ACUPA Blog Committee Welcomes Policy Experts

ACUPA Website Features

Welcome to the New Blog!

Accessibility

Are Your Policies Accessible? Part 1: An Introduction to Web Accessibility

Are Your Policies Accessible? Part 2: Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Are Your Policies Accessible? Part 3: Automating Accessibility in Custom Word Templates

Are Your Policies Fully Available to Your Stakeholders?

Hybrid/Remote Work

Adapt to an Online Environment to Develop Policies

And Now We Zoom...

Hybrid Work Schedules

Pivot to a Remote Work Environment

Pandemic and Policy

A Sea of Change and a Pandemic

Campus Changes in Light of the Coronavirus

Moving toward a New Normal

Policy Changes on Steroids and I'm Over It

Policy Matters Open Forum Covid

To Vax, or not to Vax

Policy in the News

Policy in the News (2023)

Policy in the News (2022)

Policy in the News (2021)

Policy in the News (2020)

Policy in the News (2019)

The Policy Process

Always Getting Better

Benchmarking Policies

Choose Your Words Carefully

Do I Really Need a Policy and Procedure?

Do You Cite References in Policy?

Do you evaluate your policy objectives?

Expediting Policies to Address Organizational Risks

Inclusive Policy Development

Increase Awareness of and Participation in Policy Development

Let's Talk About Procedures!

Organizing a Policy Catalog

Our Language Matters

Policies as More than Rules

Policy Development – Are Templates Required?

Policies Requiring Public Review and Comment

Project Management

The First Element

What Is a Policy?

When Your Steering Committee Fails to Steer

Where Does Your Policy Function Belong?

Where have all the Policies Gone? Part I

Where have all the Policies Gone? Part II

Roles and Responsibilities of Policy Professionals

Beyond the Policy Administrators Role

Defining Career Success

Other Duties as Assigned

So, What Do You Do?

What it Takes to be an Effective Policy Administrator

What’s In Your Policy Closet?

Software, Programs, and Digitization

Behind the Scenes of Policy Data

Customize Your Microsoft Word Experience (I)

Customize Your Microsoft Word Experience (II)

Easily Convert Web Pages to PDF Format

In Search of Innovation

Policy Administration for the Digital Age

Version Control, Auto Saving, and Collaborative Editing

Title IX

Historical View of Title IX

Title IX Officers are the People Who Stay Awake at Night

Miscellaneous

Bereavement Leave

Betting on College Sports

Equity Review at Georgia Gwinnett College

Is Technology Dictating Policy?

Is Your Institution Ready for the Robot Invasion?

Learning and Love

"Operation Varsity Blues": High Stakes Testing in College Admissions

Policy and Political Activism

Protecting Essential Records -- Key to Surviving a Catastrophe

Reducing Risks to Institutional Data

Student Interns as Valued Employees

The Joining of Two Community Colleges

The Power of P3s

The Robots are Coming

The Violence of the Last Six Months

Thoughts on Retirement

Values in Action

As was stated in the inaugural blog post, we continue to appeal to you, our members, to help us evolve and decide whether the information shared in the featured posts are relevant and interesting. Do you have an idea for a blog post? Ultimately, this blog is for you, our members, and your submissions are encouraged and welcomed! If you are interested in contributing as a guest (maybe you are interested in being interviewed to share your own experiences as a policy professional), becoming a member of the Blog Committee, or want to share an idea for a topic to be explored through a post, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Most institutions are now aware of the need for recognizing and respecting the differences among the members of our stakeholder communities. As policy administrators, many of us are building equity review into our policy development processes.

Most of us now publish our institutions' policies online and share our policy drafts electronically, rather than in paper policy manuals or through paper documents. Just as it's important to consider adding equity review to the development of policies, it's also important that we consider how to prepare the content for distribution in ways that make it accessible to a wide range of people, including those who use assistive devices.

Here are some considerations for your institutions, all of which we’ve put in place here at Washington State University (WSU):

• Establish a policy and/or procedures for improving the accessibility of online and electronic content. As an example, here at WSU we have an executive policy and supporting procedures:
  • University Web Accessibility Policy
  • Ensuring Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
• Require web accessibility training for all institutional online developers and webmasters.
• Provide issue reporting and complaint/grievance procedures regarding accessibility issues.

At WSU, our Web Communications unit handles web accessibility problems and our institution's ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) coordinator is responsible for managing access complaints and grievances.

Creating Accessible Word and PDF Documents

Most of us use Word to create our source documents and either Word or PDF for drafts and creating web versions of our policies. Taking in consideration of assistive devices, here's some key components for making Word and PDF documents accessible to all:

• Headings:
  • Headings create a hierarchy in the document that a screen reader can follow.
• Document Title, Description, and Tags:
  • A default document title is necessary for a screen reader to be able to scan and read out loud to its user.
  • A document description gives screen reader users a brief summary of the document they are about to read.
  • Document tags allow a screen reader to know if they are looking at an image, a paragraph, a heading, etc.
• Hyperlinks:
  • Hyperlinks need to have clearly defined labels of the destination of each link so that a screen reader is able to read them out loud when scanning the document.
  • It's preferable to embed link URLs (attach the URL in the background to a word or phrase using the Link function), also known as contextual links, rather than writing out URLs in the document.
• Tables:
  • Clear table structures and headers are necessary for a screen reader to be able to scan the document.
• Alt Text:
  • Alt Text data allows a screen reader to scan a description of tables, figures, or images that may be on the document.
• Lists:
  • The built in formatting tools of Word make it easier for the screen reader to scan the document.
• Capitalized Words:
  • Use bold for emphasis and avoiding capitalization of words.
  • Assistive devices may provide capitalized words to users by reading each individual letter, instead of complete words.
• Tab/Reading Order
  • For PDFs, identifying the reading order of a document’s text helps a screen reader present the text as it is meant to be read, rather than just as random blocks of text.
    

Creating Fully Functional PDFs from Word

With the latest versions of Word in Office365, all accessibility functionality in a Word source document may be directly transferred to a PDF version:

• Select File->Save As
• Change the file type (suffix) from the default Word Document (.docx) to PDF (.pdf).
  A PDF file created in this way includes all of your active hyperlinks and other functionality.
  

Creating Accessible Documents from Scanned Images

In order to make scanned document images accessible to a screen reader user, a few things need to be done, otherwise none of the information on the document can be read by a screen reader:

• Make or convert the scanned image to PDF
• Under Tools (in Adobe Acrobat Pro):
  • Select Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
  • Select Text Recognition and In This File, and
  • Select the pages to be included
• Under Tools:
  • Select Action Wizard, then
  • Select Make Accessible
  • Select Find Recognize Text Using OCR
• In the Recognize Text -- General Settings window:
  • Select the applicable language and
  • Select Searchable as the PDF Output Style
• Select OK
  

Accessibility Guides

The process of increasing equity in our policies and policy access is ongoing. Here are some accessibility guides to provide you with further ideas as you get started:

• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
• U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) 18F Accessibility Guide
• WSU Web Communications Accessibility Guides

Clear definitions for the types of documents your policy program manages help the program administrator and policy owners determine whether and when to codify a matter in policy. It also can provide guidance for determining what policies to retire. Here are some key points to consider when crafting your definitions.

Are the stated provisions and/or limitations required?

When units or employees have the option to choose whether to follow the guidance or not, the matter likely doesn’t warrant a policy. Recommendations and best practices can be communicated outside of policies. For example, if your institution allows individual units to determine whether and how to implement flexible work schedules and remote work for their employees, a policy that covers all possible scenarios would be difficult to craft. Instead, HR can provide resources for managers, such as position evaluation checklists, employee agreements, and offer letter templates. Where remote worker status coincides with other legal or policy implications, such as out-of-state income taxes or travel reimbursement, those policies or procedures can address the issues.

Who gives final approval for a policy?

Your institution’s culture will likely weigh into this decision. Policy approval needs to happen at a level high enough to demonstrate the authority of your policy program. However, consider whether that level needs to go all the way to the top. If your governing board has to sign off on all policies, your program’s ability to enact new or revised policies quickly may be limited when the board only meets six times a year and has a lot of other matters to address. Many institutions send policies to the president or chancellor for final approval, which is a more accessible last stop than the board. Another option is to have your president/chancellor delegate approval authority to a group that meets regularly for that purpose. This delegation can be achieved by defining the group and its responsibilities in your policy on policies.

Does each policy need an owner?

This, too, may depend on your institution’s culture. A policy owner is typically an executive officer who is seen as the “sponsor” of the policy. When looking at policy programs that oversee systemwide or campuswide policies, there are options for determining the owner. Some institutions assign the president or chancellor as owner of every policy. Other institutions list various senior executives as owners. When that is the case, it’s helpful to identify the criteria used to determine which executive owns a policy. Also consider whether you need to assign a responsible office for each policy. Most of the real work administering a policy happens further down the ladder from the executive rung. A responsible office may not oversee every aspect of a policy, but assumes the role of coordinating compliance efforts.

What do your policies look like?

An essential tool in the policy administrator’s toolbox is a policy template. When all your policies are outlined in a similar fashion, users learn how to read them and find the information they need quickly. Templates ensure that important information isn’t left out. One question that often comes up is whether the policy template should include procedures. I won’t advocate one way or the other here, but if your template does not include procedures, consider whether you should define what an operating procedure is. Which leads me to the next question.

Are policies the only way to convey information?

Your institution likely has varying levels of policies, such as systemwide, campuswide, and unit level. Consider defining in your policy on policies what the difference is between each type and what happens when there is a conflict between policies on the same topic. Other types of documents you may want to define include operating procedures, standards, and guidelines. Ask the same questions about whether something is required or optional, who has final approval, and whether the document must adhere to a template. Also, be sure to explain how the various types of documents relate to one another.

Due to the popularity of our previous Policy in the News post, the Blog Committee wanted to take this opportunity to share recent policy-related higher education articles ahead of the ACUPA Annual Conference.

Administration

Guidance for an Often Thankless Task: Revising the Faculty Handbook
By Laura L. Behling, Inside Higher Ed, April 4, 2023

AI in Academia

AI Tools Don’t Have to be the Enemy of Teaching and Learning
By Gavan P.L. Watson & Sarah Elaine Eaton, University Affairs, February 17, 2023

Canadian Universities Crafting ChatGPT Policies as French School Bans AI Program
By Aaron D’Andrea, Global News, February 1, 2023

Campus Safety

West Virginia Governor Signs Campus Carry Gun Bill
By John Raby, AP News, March 1, 2023

Equity, Diversity, Inclusion

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
By Safia Abdulahi, Inside Higher Ed, April 4, 2023

Harvard Grad Union Members Mixed on New University-Wide Policies on Bullying and Discrimination
By Julia A. Maciejak, The Harvard Crimson, April 5, 2023

How EDI Policies are Failing International Students
By Karine Coen-Sanchez, University Affairs, January 24, 2023

The Ohio Education Bill that Stands Against Diversity Training—and China
By Alcino Donadel, University Business, March 15, 2023

Health and Wellness

New ‘Disconnecting from Work’ Policies Aren’t Enough to Tackle the Problem of Work-life Balance
By Michael Rancic, University Affairs, August 8, 2023

What Higher Ed's Paid Parental-Leave Policies Look Like
By Megan Zahneis, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 28, 2023

Yale University’s New Mental Health Policy Raises Discussions Among BW Communities
By Madeline Dwyer, The Exponent, March 23, 2023

Information Technology

Education Espionage: FSA “Secret Shoppers” to Monitor Higher Ed for Unethical Practices
By Alcino Donadel, University Business, March 15, 2023

How IT Departments Can Shape Acceptable Use Policies in Higher Ed
By Alexandra Shimalla, EdTech: Focus on Higher Education, March 29, 2023

U.S. Department of Education Announces Updated Data Security Expectation for Postsecondary Institutions
By Sarah Pheasant, Jonathan Tarnow (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP), J.D. Supra, March 31, 2023

Tenure and Recruitment

Florida University System Approves New Tenure Policy, Spurning Faculty Critics
By Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, Higher Ed Dive, March 30, 2023

Texas Senate’s Priority Bills on Higher Ed Would End Tenure, Diversity Policies
By Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune, March 10, 2023

In the past few years, crisis, cultural shifts, and financial woes have led to a rise of complexity in maintaining our policy systems within our institutions. Meeting all the regulations can be challenging, as they are constantly changing. In addition, institutions are feeling the pressure from regulators, internal staff and faculty, and the community at large to maintain the regulations. Challenges faced yesterday are not the challenges we will face tomorrow or next year. Do you have the confidence that your policies could stand up to regulatory scrutiny? Does this mean that we need to become even more resilient and inventive – is there any untapped potential out there?

As policy leaders we have learned that we need systems and processes to get things done. But is that enough? Even the most skilled person today is challenged with the immense workload of continuous changes and updates required for policy management. Even the way we distribute, collect, account for and present changes has undergone enormous change. It is not just a check list and process – we need to manage risk, ensure data security and privacy while balancing access and inclusiveness and external influences – it all seems daunting, and to top it all off, failing to comply with the ever-evolving regulations can lead to costly fines and lawsuits.

We are looking virtually everywhere for indicators of change, racing with time to have key policies, procedures and training completed to be compliant. Today, no one is standing waiting for the next change to come down the hall, which makes it even more important that we work with synergy across the institution.

We must support and arm ourselves with the tools, processes and technology that facilitate clear communication. We need to define the review and reflection process of our policies, cultivate open discussion and dialogue all while engaging with other departments and units about the need for change, seek an understanding of the barriers for everyone and then provide the necessary follow up to make the needed changes for lasting growth and compliance.

In September, I wrote “Don’t wait for a crisis to create an efficient policy management system.” That ‘safety net’ is one great way to engage a team to ensure compliance, a tool that builds structure – whether you are a small scale operation or a larger scaled institution, a system and a plan is critical. A plan gives both leaders and others a path forward and provides the principles needed to navigate change. In December 2022, Michele Gross (University of Minnesota) wrote “The First Element: Meeting at the Intersection of Policy and Compliance” - outlining the first of seven elements of a compliance program and the importance of the system to frame our compliance at our institutions. For those who may not be aware, the seven elements of a legally effective compliance program are:

1. Policies & Procedures
2. Chief Compliance Officer/Compliance Committee
3. Education & Training
4. Reporting
5. Monitoring & Auditing
6. Enforcement
7. Responding To Issues

GRC 20/20 Research, LLC wrote “A Tsunami of Change Overwhelms Compliance,” which states that some institutions have broken processes and insufficient resources to manage compliance. I know that there is not one size fits all -- there can’t be. This is why we must continue to evolve – we should rearrange our priorities when we have too much of anything as Sara Gigeroff (University of New Brunswick) wrote in her blog What’s In Your Closet? (Feb 2023). More importantly she states that communicating, setting boundaries, purging, and revaluating are all key elements in managing our policy framework…and our closets!

There's no time like the present to simplify. Legacy systems are expensive and difficult to use. Manual processing is far too time-consuming and in a hybrid environment its not effective. I say m ake retention simple for users and administrators, so they don’t have to interact with files in a separate, siloed repository or go through cumbersome, manual processes. We must invest in this process for it to be effective. Who can remember five-sheet carbon paper? Now that was cumbersome! We have evolved since carbon paper, but some institutions are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to making a compliance program a priority.

Who is your untapped potential – identify them and get them on board. This process, more than ever, needs support and buy-in from our leadership and other stakeholders across the institution to be successful (more hands make less work). Beware of analysis paralysis – encourage administrators to work with broad strokes. Show them how proactively setting the boundaries for document lifecycle management, rules for sharing and record management classifications can make work simpler, more consistent and save money. If it was possible to make policies ‘fun’ I would say do that too!

Other areas that untap that potential are field experts like our colleagues at ACUPA . They are an excellent way to leverage all our tools – garner support and encourage others to join in the conversations and become members.

It only takes one incident, one mistake, one error to mark an institution’s reputation and erode trust. In my opinion, our untapped potential may simply be harnessing the power of workplace collaboration and an ability to accelerate the processes to protect our most valuable information.

The Potential For Cluttered Closets

I often comment that policy professionals are a unique group of people.

Our coworkers don’t completely understand our passion for policy, let alone the timelines associated with the policy process. They are aware of some of our skills, but not necessarily the many hats we wear behind the scenes due to the amount of autonomy we have in our positions. Despite juggling additional tasks along with our established responsibilities, many of us would enthusiastically affirm that we chose policy as a career path due to the meaningful change we see across the academy based on the work we are involved in.

That said, our passion for creating positive change can make it difficult for us to decline opportunities to employ our niche skills when we are requested elsewhere across the institution. Before we know it, our policy closet is filled with hats of all sorts. It looks like we’ve hit a big sale, except . . . we already had a favorite hat, maybe a few lost in the back of our closet, and we didn’t get rid of any old hats to make room for the new ones. An overflowing closet can become overwhelming, but sorting through it and establishing boundaries can help us maintain that peculiar passion for all things policy while keeping our closets organized.

New Hats Can Be Fun, But A Messy Closet Is Overwhelming

The bulk of policy work is work we do independently and behind the scenes, which can result in numerous requests for our information analysis skills, our keen eye for detail, and our comprehensive planning strategies.

In my case, as an employee dedicated to a research office, it can involve assisting an agreements group, advising on community partnerships, navigating culturally appropriate methods of conducting research, sitting on ad hoc committees, and assisting with strategic plan development, all while prioritizing my everyday policy-related needs. Being involved in these additional projects is usually a nice change of pace.

Of course, the policy process can be long and lonely, so working with colleagues across campus on various initiatives and representing an office on ad-hoc committees can provide the little break we sometimes need from the frustrations of policy planning and programming. Personally, being involved with ACUPA and lending my skills elsewhere on campus re-ignite the passion I have for policy work, but possessing the niche skills of a policy specialist can lead to big or frequent donations of hats, as well as the gift of many new hats to our closets if we aren’t careful.

Communicating Your Closet Contents To Others

Years ago, when managing a non-profit program for individuals experiencing mental illness who found their diagnoses negatively impacted their work lives, I spent a lot of time training employees and those we supported to recognize their limits in the workplace, to advocate for themselves, and to respectfully set boundaries with employers. Now, having returned to work in academia where my skills can be spread thin due to requests outside of my core duties, I often remind myself of the importance of establishing boundaries at work so as to keep my policy closet tidy.

In my current position, this means having to politely decline when asked to independently draft campus-wide policies that are out of my scope, while still offering to be part of working groups and carving out time to review a draft in its entirety prior to consultation. It also involves reminding others that I work in a policy position dedicated to the research office, and therefore, my top priority in any project is to ensure researchers, graduate students, and post-doctoral fellows are considered and appropriately represented in policies external to our office.

Along with that, having regularly scheduled, honest conversations and check-ins with senior management is extremely important. Policy positions, job responsibilities, and priorities all expand and change over time, so re-evaluating responsibilities and advocating for change within our positions is necessary or our closets become overwhelming.

Purging And Re-evaluating Closet Contents Is Advantageous For Everyone

Ultimately, advocating for yourself and politely setting boundaries is advantageous not only to you, the employee, but often positively impacts the office or unit you work in because you are then better able to focus on their needs and priorities rather than getting sucked into every possible project. Having those conversations with senior management doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be required to stretch yourself now and then to pitch in. Revealing your closet contents, reevaluating them, and rearranging them, however, can help keep you passionate about the work you do, while providing more balance in your work life, and oftentimes, your home life, which is something most of us need more than we are willing to admit.

What’s In Your Policy Closet?

What does your policy closet look like? Is it small and stuffed to the brim? Do you have a well-organized walk-in closet? How many hats do you have? Do you have a favorite hat or a least favorite hat? Are there hats lost in the back of your closet? Tell us in the comments below.

Note for ACUPA members: Check out the ACUPA Sample Job Descriptions webpage for examples of the numerous roles and responsibilities of policy professionals. These have been provided by policy administrators at multiple institutions and can be valuable resources when evaluating priorities and responsibilities.

If you've been in the policy administration business for any length of time, you've likely heard about, considered, and/or implemented a "policy on policies" at your institution. For those of you who don't already publish such a policy, I thought I'd discuss why I believe that it's a valuable tool to have in place.

Policy development is an important function, but getting administrative buy-in and notice of the importance of consistent policy development and tracking is sometimes difficult. Having a "policy on policies" provides an agreed-upon process for developing, reviewing, and approving policies, and ensures better compliance with the rules, regulations, and agreements that govern the business of higher education.

Here are some things to consider when creating or updating a policy on policies at your institution:

• Applicability
• Equity Review
• Required Policy Review and Approval Steps
• Templates or Framework

I'm also providing brief descriptions below of how we've chosen to handle these considerations here at Washington State University (WSU).

Applicability

Do you want a policy on policies that applies to all or only some policies?

At WSU, as with many public research universities, we have many types of institution-wide policy publications in place -- administrative policy manuals, academic policies and procedures, personnel manuals, research-related manuals, and our Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulations.

When we first published an executive policy on policies, our administration decided to apply it to all policies except academic and single-unit or single-campus policies and procedures. The policy at that time outlined a draft/review/approval process that all policy publication departments were required to follow. Our policy on policies was revised recently to apply only to policies intended for publication in the four administrative policy manuals and the WAC regulations, which are managed by my office.

Equity Review

Do you want to include an equity review requirement in your policy on policies?

Our administration, including academic leadership, recently approved an equity review process, which includes an equity lens tool. My office agreed to publish the equity lens tool from our new Policy Development website, and to include discussion of the required process in the policy on policies.

Equity lens review includes review and approval both during the policy discussion phase and during the formal drafting and review phase of policy development.

And in the interest of increasing transparency and WSU community input, our Policy Development website includes descriptions of administrative policies under development and copies of drafts of the policies under review. (Copies of administrative policy drafts are available to WSU members only.) Copies of proposed WAC amendments continue to be published through the Washington State Register (WSR), and our Proposed WACs website links to the WSR proposals and public hearing information.

Required Policy Review and Approval Steps

Do you want to include specific actions for policy developers to complete when requesting new or revised policies, or removing policies? Do you want to have separate processes for major revisions and minor revisions?

In order to ensure that steps such as conducting the equity review, involving my office (for preparation and process oversight), and obtaining approvals from necessary administrators are completed, we decided to include step-by-step process instructions in our updated policy on policies. Our administration agreed to allow an abbreviated approval process for minor revisions.

Our policy on policies also includes periodic review requirements. For the most part it was decided to make the applicable administrative departments responsible for periodic review, as my office has a very limited staff (just two of us).

Template or Framework

Do you want your policy developers to use a template, or will you provide a policy framework to them for reference?

As I wrote in a previous blog a year or so back, we had for many years not required templates for policy development, but instead provided framework recommendations upon request. However, our compliance administration decided to implement a template for our executive policies and a template for our business and safety policies and procedures. (Links to these policy templates are available from our Policy Development website In the interest of moving forward with the updated policy on policies requirements as soon as possible, we have not applied the templates to our existing policies, but plan to restructure our policies as revisions occur. (Again, this is mainly due to staffing limitations and workload.)

In conclusion, if you haven't already implemented a "policy on policies," I highly recommend doing so. Having one in place greatly assists both policy developers and members of the policy administration office, by providing readily-accessible guidance and structure.

Note to ACUPA Members

Be sure to look at the ACUPA Templates and Other Tools webpage for samples to use to guide policy development, revision, review, and removal. These templates, guides, and tools have been developed from samples provided by policy administrators at multiple institutions and can be invaluable resources.

If you’ve spent any amount of time with your compliance unit, you know about the seven elements of an effective compliance program. These are the foundation pieces that frame compliance at our institutions. The first element speaks directly to the establishment of policies and procedures. It’s not good enough to just have policies and procedures, however. There’s more to this element, namely, policies must be:

• clearly written,
• relevant and current,
• specific to job functions within the organization,
• reviewed on a regular basis, and
• readily available.

This is why your role at your institution fits so well with addressing this element.

Clearly Written

This is a bit subjective since everyone has different experiences. Using the word “debit’ in an accounting policy may not resonate with individuals who don’t often use this word. The good news is that it’s also not likely that the policy would apply to them.

Here are some questions to ask yourself or group:

• Are there words or phrases that are not allowed in your administrative policies?At the University of Minnesota, ‘shall’ was only used in our Board of Regents policies.Administrative policies used ‘must’, ‘are responsible for’, ‘are prohibited from’, etc. to make it clearer to the reader.
• Do you require that acronyms only be used in policies once the full term has been spelled out the first time it was used? Are acronyms then used consistently throughout the policy?
• Are there sentences that are too long?How might they be broken up into smaller chunks of information to be more easily absorbed?
• Are there terms that are not commonly understood?
• Are the sections of the policy in the correct order (e.g., initiation to termination)?
• Do you use bullets to make points vs. wordy sentences, when appropriate?
• Do you have someone with editing skills who is part of the review process?
• Do you have institutional mechanisms to create usability tests?

The most important question, however, is this: have you asked your stakeholders? This may not be a small investment in time but if the policy is not understood, it’s hard to know if the individual will be able to comply with the requirements.

Relevant and Current

This is typically the role of the policy owner, but you as the policy administrator can send out routine reminders to review the information and let your office know if changes are needed.

• Are policy owners encouraged/required to regularly review their content to ensure that the content is current?
• Is the policy still needed? If so, why?This is a hard one because there is ownership, and it can be hard for the owner to ‘let go’ of a policy.
• Does your office help watch for changes in related policies (e.g., Board of Regents or governing laws and regulations) so that the policies may be updated?
• Do any new laws trigger the need for a new policy?

Specific to Job Functions within the Organization

Most of the work here likely resides with managers who should ensure that their staff know which policies apply to them. I use the word ‘should’ but it often doesn’t happen, especially if there are a lot of policies in your policy library. Helping the policy owners make it clear as to which audience is impacted by the policy could fit well with your role as policy administrator.

• Does the policy scope or equivalent state the individuals/groups for whom the policy requirements apply?
• Are there definitions in the policy that might further elaborate the roles that are impacted?
• Do you have groupings by high-level functions (research, teaching, outreach, human resources) that might help guide employees to the right sections?

Reviewed Regularly

If a policy needs to be ‘dusted off’ before viewed, it’s likely been too long since an actual review was conducted. There are also flavors of reviews. A simple review might be one that merely confirms that the content is still current. This is the most passive of reviews and it does allow policy owners to take the easy way of just saying ‘yes’.

A more comprehensive approach to regular reviews will net you significant benefits:

• Are there policies that can be combined because the topics are so closely related?
• Are there policies that should be retired?
• Would existing policies benefit from a partial or full re-write to improve readability, etc.?

Readily Available

If part of your responsibilities includes managing the website and the policy library, the onus for this part of the element is all yours. It’s a bit more complicated for you if you depend on technical resources not under your control to accomplish updates and more.

• Is your website and content available 24/7?
• Are downtimes announced?
• Are stakeholders able to view policies on a version specifically for mobile devices?
• Are you able to promote new and significantly revised policies on your home page to help stakeholders stay up with the most current of information?

Institutions care about being compliant and the important work you do is essentially to helping fulfill this element.

Why does this policy have these requirements? Why does that policy exclude those? Why do we even have a policy on this? These are questions that often garner the response, “That’s just how we’ve always done it.” If that is the best answer you can find, it’s time to benchmark. This post offers a few suggestions for organizing your search.

What to Look For

First, decide what aspects of a given policy you want to review. Just reading through policies from other colleges and universities without an idea of what to look for will be a waste of your time. Consider what it is you want to change about an existing policy or what questions about a new policy you want to answer. This may include things like:

• Policy owners. Some policies have an obvious owner, like HR, IT, or Dean of Students Office. Others might be a little gray if they have wide application and straddle more than one area, like records retention or volunteers on campus. This is a data point that you can easily look for.
• Administrative structure. This includes things like whether to have a committee review something or just one person, the level at which a decision can be made, and what needs to be approved in advance.
• Scope. Which employees are covered by the policy? Does it also apply to students? Is there a dollar limit or threshold? Should the topic be broken down into more than one policy or should two policies be combined? These are just a few examples of the kinds of things that you might be questioning about your policy scope.
• Forms. Maybe you have a great policy already but need to create or update a form. Benchmarking can be used for that too by identifying which fields to include, whether to require a signature, etc.

Where to Look

Which institutions you include in your benchmarking will depend somewhat on who will be reviewing the results and how drastic the proposed changes may be.

• Your conference peers. If your college has athletics, you can’t go wrong benchmarking the institutions within your conference. This often holds a lot of water when you need to share the results with executives and/or faculty. Most schools have their policies posted online, especially public institutions. Bookmark the policy libraries of your peers so you can quickly browse to them when you need to. If your conference includes schools that publish their policies behind a login, you may need to email each institution individually to ask if they will share their policy with you.
• ACUPA colleagues. Post your questions to the ACUPA forums. Many of our members are willing to share their documents, and posting to the forums prevents you from having to send individual emails. The results can supplement the findings from your conference peers or be used alone.

How to Document

I find spreadsheets to be the best way to organize my information. Use one axis to list all the institutions and the other for your findings. Try to word the headings in a way that allows for easy comparison within a column or row. For example, using a question that can be answered yes or no makes it easy to see whether there is a strong tendency one way or another. Not all information can be answered with a yes or no, so in those cases, consider converting terminology, office names, or titles into ones that your institution uses. This allows you to compare apples to apples rather than a hodgepodge of terms. I also like to include a link to each policy as one of the columns or rows for easy reference.

Whether it’s time to revise a long-standing policy or draft a new one, benchmarking what other institutions are doing can save you time in the long run.

As we continue the fall semester, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we’ve been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education. We have sorted them by subject matter for easier browsing.

Title IX

Hurry Up and Wait: What Can You Do While Awaiting the Title IX Final Rule?
By Alisha Carter Harris for TNG Consulting, JD Supra, Sept. 27, 2022

Department of Education Releases New Guidance on Pregnancy and Related Conditions
By Susan D. Friedfel, Carol R. Ashley, Crystal L. Tyler, and Desiree H. Langley, Jackson Lewis P.C., Oct. 10, 2022

Title IX Mandatory Reporting Expansion Under Fire
By Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed, Sept. 27, 2022

Health and Wellness

At One University, Resistance to a New Covid Policy Comes From Inside the House
By Francie Diep, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 14, 2022

Remote Work

What must leaders consider as they develop permanent remote work policies?
By Jon McNaughtan, Catherine Whaley, and Chelsea Wallace, Times Higher Education, Oct. 12, 2022

Academic Freedom and Women's Health

University of Idaho: Academic freedom policy, birth control access haven’t changed
By Becca Savransky for Idaho Statesman, The Spokesman Review, Oct. 5, 2022

Inclusion and Institutional Culture

University of Guelph Establishes Anti-Racism Policy Statement
Press Release by University of Guelph, Education News Canada, Oct. 13, 2022

We need to have new conversations about culture
By Edie Goldberg, Talent Management and HR (TLNT), Oct. 11, 2022

Student Admissions and Accessibility

Why Would-Be Students Aren’t Choosing College
By Sara Weissman, Inside Higher Education, Sept. 29, 2022

Admissions to the Major
By Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 3, 2022

When ‘Rigor’ Targets Disabled Students
By Katie Rose Guest Pryal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 6, 2022

Campus Safety

Sexual assaults prompt Republicans, Democrats to relaunch Campus Safety bill
By Chris Burt, University Business, Oct. 7, 2022

Concordia University dragging feet on sexual violence policy, student unions say
By Erika Morris, CBC News, October 5, 2022

Transcript Withholding

Most Colleges Withhold Students’ Transcripts Over Debt. That’s Starting to Change.
By Sylvia Goodman, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 6, 2022

Higher Ed Groups Urge Review of Transcript Withholding
By Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 13, 2022

Policy management, by definition, is the creation, organization, approval, and dissemination of policy and procedure documents...and so much more. With our university structure developing, changing, and delivering at a faster pace, it's no wonder that chaos can ensue when there is an abundance of changes and many individuals and departments involved. Once, not so long ago, we were all in the same relative space—now we find ourselves in a virtual world with multiple campuses amid constant change.

Policy management is the art of taming the chaos, organizing the mess, and streamlining the entire process. In the university we look to the boards, senate, and leadership to set the standards for the institutions to follow and our policies articulate those visions set in everyday concrete terms. 

A policy management strategy helps everyone set expectations, provides direction for institutions, and guides important decision making. Strong policy management also minimizes the potential risks and liabilities for all areas of the university or organization.

Did everyone read this policy? Where is the latest update? Who’s responsible for monitoring and enforcement? Why are there similar policies from different units? And why do these two contradict each other?

No matter how advanced your policy management is, an institution can always benefit by making it centralized and easy to access and distribute. It is more than just keeping everything in a three-ring binder. It’s the creation, approval, organization, and dissemination of all policy and procedure documents. It also refers to the modernization of your manuals and records. In today’s world records management is not a physical item in a file drawer, it’s a virtual system of living documents that adapt to the changing landscape and the ever-changing threats and risks to the institution. It must be an accessible and easy way of disseminating new or amended policies to the stakeholders, and in many cases the institution or responsible authorities need to track and collect data on who reads them, and track compliance with rules, regulations, and laws that affect our institutions.

Policy management (a unified system) in the 21st century is critical. It’s your plan for distributing information simultaneously and efficiently. More importantly, it ensures that policy communication and implementation are in sync and centralized in one location. Its important that there be a clear and visible records management system and team in place at every institution.

It only takes one incident, one mistake, one error to mark an institution’s reputation and erode trust. As my colleague Deborah Bartlett, Washington State University recently wrote in Protecting Essential Records -- Key to Surviving a Catastrophe, “It’s crucial to consider the importance of your records and how to protect them...”

Policies should not be a ‘set-and-forget’ list of rules. If 2020 has shown us anything, it’s that we need to adapt and change with the times, and our policies need to reflect those ideologies.
Think without a box, be creative (where budgets are tight), and importantly be centralized and organized. I enjoyed this quick video that the University of British Columbia's Records Management Office created when they introduced key concepts of UBC Policy 117. It’s a fun watch and gave me a sense of direction and confidence in the system: Records Management 101: Policy and Responsibility.

This doesn’t mean you need a policy for every incident or change in the business or social climate. Rather, you should set up a regular review process that includes a centralized team to ensure the policies are accurate, relevant, and effective.

Everyone learns and understands differently, which for me emphasizes the need to ensure that the system and documents are accessible, understandable, and that training is provided. The right policy management system lets you be proactive in preventing problems, as well as giving you concrete processes to resolve the situation quickly and professionally. Frustration is only amplified when individuals can’t find the policy, or the wrong policy is being used.

Don’t wait for a crisis to change policies. You need a framework that addresses our new reality, and the need for responsive change and innovation is now.

Disasters, in the form of fires, broken water pipes, floods, and other unforeseen natural and man-made events, can happen at any time. Many of us have been involved with developing and publishing emergency preparedness policies and plans for our colleges and universities. Many institutional IT groups already have data backup and recovery in mind as part of their emergency preparedness plans. But emergency preparedness applies to each and every one of us -- and records protection needs to be a part of that conversation.

Each one of us has records stored in our computers and offices regarding the business we undertake on a daily basis. Have you and your organizations considered what records you'd need to replace after a disaster to allow you to restart operations as quickly as possible?

If you work for a state institution, you may already have state requirements regarding identifying and protecting essential records, also referred to as vital records. However, even if your college or university is a private institution, I urge you to consider adding essential records protection to your emergency preparedness policies and plans.

Identify and Backup Essential Records

Before disasters occur, it's important to identify what records are essential, create backups of the records, and store those backups in offsite locations. Offsite backup of essential records is key to “surviving” a catastrophe.

To identify essential records, you'll want to review your records and consider the following:

• What are the functions you or your unit will be unable to perform if the record is destroyed?
• What is the need for you or your unit to perform a particular function?
• What are the consequences to your unit or institution, including loss of rights or inconvenience, if the record is destroyed?
• Is there a need for the record to be replaced or reconstructed quickly?
• What time, money, and labor costs would be involved to reconstruct the record?
• Are there replacement sources available for the record?
• What media format is used (e.g., paper, computer hard drive, digital drive or cloud, disc, microfilm)?
• What is the accessibility of the format after an emergency?

Use the above prompts to audit your records and develop a list of the essential record types that you hold. Then schedule regular backups of your essential records and store the backups in an offsite location. For example, my policy office regularly backs up our policies in-progress and policy archives, as well as unit administrative records. Because our work is mostly managed electronically, we worked with our IT group to establish a shared drive for storing our backups that's located in a server housed in a building that's a considerable physical distance away from our office building.

Be Prepared

It’s crucial to consider the importance of your records and how to protect them, as well as to consider the minimum amount of time you need to keep those records. Don't let an unexpected event stop you in your tracks.

Death affects us in different ways. As much as we may think we understand someone else’s grief following the loss of a loved one, we can never really know how they feel. Many factors go into the way we experience grief. Our relationship to the individual, the circumstances of their death, the last memory we have of that person, the things we said or didn’t say to them before they were gone, what we believe others expect from us after the death. As an employer, does your institution’s bereavement policy bring needed support to the grieved or does it add stress to an already difficult time? Consider a few aspects of your bereavement policy to ensure it works for both your institution and your employees.

Number of Days in Paid Status

For most employers, the number of days of paid bereavement leave depends on the relationship of the employee to the deceased. More time is given to close relatives like parents, spouses, children, and siblings, with less time offered to more distant relations like uncles, aunts, and cousins. But families are complicated. What about relatives that live in the employee’s home? What about in-laws and step-relatives? If an employee’s spouse loses a parent and needs to make arrangements, it seems likely that the employee would be involved in those arrangements and would need the same amount of time as if it were their own parent.

While lines do need to be drawn somewhere, consider whether widening the circle of relatives for whom the employee is allowed longer bereavement leave causes any real detriment to the institution. An employee who is granted sufficient time away will be more productive when they return to work.

Timeframe for Taking Bereavement Leave

In the United States, it is common for funerals and other services or memorials for the deceased to happen within several days or a couple weeks of the death. Common, but not absolute. The circumstances of the individual’s death may require a delay in mourning rituals. Weather could play a factor in fulfilling the decedent’s wishes. A pandemic could prevent family from coming together right away. If your policy imposes a time limit by which bereavement leave needs to be taken, consider whether that limit allows enough flexibility for the employee. A two-week limit to take leave is a pretty short period of time. The weather is not likely to change much in two weeks if it’s January in New York. Offering employees a month or even six months can help them make decisions without undue pressure.

Does your policy require the employee to take all the leave consecutively? That, too, could put undue pressure on the grieved. If your policy allows five days of leave, it may be more helpful to allow the employee to divide that time up as they need it. An employee who feels supported in their time of need will likely be a more dedicated employee in the long run.

Documentation

Does your policy require that the employee turn in an obituary or other proof of loss? If so, why? Trust isn’t given, it is earned. Yes, there may be a few people who come up with phantom relatives or friends in order to get a day off. But do you really need to put your supervisors in a position of policing bereavement leave? Just because someone turns in an obituary for a sweet old lady who died last week, doesn’t mean that lady was really their aunt. Trust employees to be honest and do the right thing. The employees who need the time will be grateful that the process for taking leave was easy.

Can you believe it? It’s been two years of working remotely, but some folks are getting tired of their home offices and want to get back to campus. However, not every campus is back to pre-pandemic workplace traffic.

I imagine that on your campus, faculty and staff were working remotely out of necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic while pre-pandemic working from home was done on an ad hoc basis. Now, it appears that remote work has become a permanent part of work schedule options. Essentially, hybrid work schedules are arrangements where folks work a combination of work from home some days and other days are on campus.

If your campus chooses the hybrid model, it should be done with intention that takes into consideration that the arrangements need to be monitored and adjusted as the work evolves and folks’ personal needs change. The traditional campus work life won’t and shouldn’t go away. Simply, the hybrid schedules supplement it.

What’s amazing about this hybrid workforce model is that it challenges our assumptions about our campus spaces and what collaboration looks and feels like. We’ve all gained virtual work skills during the pandemic even if we have never worked remotely before. We’ve relied heavily on our WiFi and our IT colleagues. So, it is critical that your IT function be included in the strategizing as various tools are needed for calendaring, chatting, e-signing, managing projects, payroll access, and document sharing. Ha! And, we’ve all come to love videoconferencing in the form of Zoom or something like it. 

As a human resources professional, my observation is that folks often underestimate how much of their work is virtual, even when they are on campus. In many cases, we conduct much of our business through email exchanges with folks we may rarely have face-to-face meetings or connections. In my view, it is critical that social and interpersonal skills are components of any workplace strategy and culture. Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the way we work and to adapt necessary changes are needed to strengthen our campus work cultures. For obvious reasons, your campus will need to think through role-specific criteria for hybrid work schedules, but arrangements will also be driven by the employee’s personal circumstances. Supervisors of teams with full or hybrid schedules should seek out support from HR. Employee engagement and connection is important for collegial, high performing team collaborations. HR can assist with crafting activities, training, and other interventions to create inclusive experiences for all employees. Whether folks have chosen to be on campus or not, we must recognize that all of our constituencies are looking for assistance to maintain a healthy work and family life.

Have you ever tried to figure out how to convert policy pages into a PDF file and found it to be a tedious experience? Convoluted html coding, such as </p>, <ol>, <li>, <div>, <span>, and &nbsp, confuse you?

There are several software apps and policy management developers who claim to be able to convert web pages into PDF format at minimal cost. Why spend a lot of money trying to find out what to use when you can use this guide for free, thanks to your ACUPA membership!

By following these steps, you will be able to convert HTML code to PDF in no time. The Adobe Acrobat-Create PDF extension tool lets you quickly convert HTML to PDF in your Google Chrome browser. The conversion process happens in seconds without manual deletion of the HTML and CSS codes. Here’s how.

1. In Google Chrome, check to see if you have the extension. Choose Settings then click Extensions. If you do not see a box with the extension displayed, skip to Step 6 for instructions on downloading the extension.
2. Enable the Adobe Acrobat-Create PDF extension, by clicking the toggle switch to the right.
   
3. Navigate to the page you want to convert.
4. Use one of the following two options:
   1. Click on the Extensions symbol, and click on Adobe Acrobat PDF edit, convert, sign tools.
      
   2. In the pop-up box, click on Convert Web page to Adobe PDF.
      

OR

1. Right-click on the web page, choose Adobe Acrobat: PDF edit, convert, Convert Web Page to Adobe PDF.
   

5. Your browser will save the file according to your browser settings. Note: Design features and images on the page may not convert depending on the page coding. However, all text should convert seamlessly.
6. If you need to download the extension, go to the following URL in Google Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adobe-acrobat-pdf-edit-co/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj
7. Click the button to Add to Chrome.
8. In the pop-up window, click Add extension.
9. The extension is automatically enabled, so you can go back to Step 3 to convert a page.

Think back to a time when you were on a committee that was poorly run or just plain bad. How did you feel?

An important and productive tool for an association, board or council is the work of a committee. Committees are indispensable, enabling work to get done in the most efficient manner. It is also true that committees (and meetings) can eat up countless hours while not accomplishing the intended goals and outcomes. A committee: “A group of people who talk for hours to produce a result called minutes.” (A. D., quoted in READER'S DIGEST, 5/76.)

Like that of policy creation, how do you create an effective committee? Is it the people? Is it the meetings? Is it the directive?

Committees don’t work well when there is:

1. Lack of goals both short and long term
2. Reliance on bad information (not enough)
3. Inability to focus on the right issues
4. Poor involvement or incorrect membership
5. Lack of clear purpose

Committees can benefit from many of the same approaches and tools that make board meetings more effective---an overview by the committee chair at the beginning of each meeting, a strategic focus for discussions, prioritized agendas, annual calendar of committee meetings and major decisions, consent agendas, and evaluation of the committee and the meetings.

For me its all that and a little bit more. Committee creation, development and maintenance is no different than that of creating a policy or procedure. First, I ask why (sometimes a few times)? Then I begin the development phase and population stage, then there is review and maintenance.

Like a policy or procedure, many times lack of attention or attendance is due in part from lack of review and reflection of the purpose and mandate.

What makes a term of reference effective?

• Does it clearly describe the purpose?
• Does it define the roles and accountabilities for everyone---members, administration, and support?
• Is it collaboratively developed with input and approved by the authority body?
• is it easy to read and understand?
• Is it fluid and does it evolve with the nature of the work and organization?
• Do you use a consistent template and process as the rest of the organization?

For me, the basic purpose of a committee is to determine, through a collective wisdom and research, the best solution to assist leadership in the decision-making process. There are many elements that will directly impact a committee’s ability to be successful.  Once you have the overall purpose and function of the committee, a key is the right membership and understanding of the purpose.

Have you thought about the different experiences and diversity that are needed to do the work of the committee and how the members will be recruited? Are the members on fixed terms or will there be opportunities to refresh the membership to offer a balance of experience and fresh perspective?

Have you provided roles and accountabilities for the committee and the members so that they can know what to expect?

What is the role of the chair, do you have a vice chair (co-chair) to help with responsibilities? Leadership is important, with a chair, having a back up, each position has a role to avoid the situation of ‘cracks in the sofa cushions,’ which could happen in situations where there are changes.

With a clear mandate and function, the committee should align itself with the overall strategic initiatives and follow a clear and transparent path. It’s not all about the terms of reference document, but it’s the start.

As you can see, the important details of developing strong, functional committees are like that of developing policies, having efficient and effective terms of reference can help set your committee and organization for success. Have you looked at the terms of reference lately? Is your steering committee steering?

This post is co-authored by Stefan's colleague Erin Hastey, Project Assistant for Administrative Policies and Special Projects at the University of Wisconsin.

In an effective policy administration system, policies are regularly reviewed and revised to align with our institutions’ missions and implementation needs. That same emphasis on review and revision applies to our policy management processes. In the University of Wisconsin (UW) System, we follow these guidelines to facilitate continuous improvement.

• Appropriate policy work channels

  Policy owners are our subject matter experts, and we leverage their expertise for maximum impact. At the UW System, we do this by having two, separate policy review committees: one for academic and student affairs policies, and another for finance and general administration policies. Each committee is empowered to develop the internal and institutional review processes best aligned with their subject matter.

• Frequent requests for key stakeholder input

  We cast a wide net for stakeholder input—draft policies and policy revisions are sent to administrators and shared governance groups at every institution each month. Draft policies include web comment forms through which stakeholders can submit their feedback and see others’. Additionally, as part of our annual policy prioritization process, we survey institution stakeholders for their top policy priorities. Based on the survey results, we work with our policy owners to identify areas most in need of attention in the coming year. This allows policy end-users to drive policy prioritization from the start.

• Regular “fresh eyes” on our process

Perhaps the most important part of continuous improvement for any process is regularly having it considered from different perspectives. At UW System, we do this in three ways:

1. Attend the ACUPA conference! By sharing information about our process at conferences, we gain valuable feedback from colleagues and learn emerging best practices. The implementation of our policy equity lens was a direct result of participating in an ACUPA conference.
   
   
2. Graduate fellow program. Through the UW System graduate fellowship program, a fellow serves as our process coordinator. Graduate fellowships last one to two years, and students come from diverse backgrounds and programs of study. This gives us a new perspective on our process at least every two years.
   
   
3. Get “familiar eyes” on our process too. While it’s important to get new perspectives, we also benefit from the perspectives of those most familiar with our process. To this end, we survey our policy owners and end-users at least biennially to get their recommendations for improvement.

Questions to inform continuous improvement for your process:

Key stakeholders: Who are the key stakeholders in our policy management process, and how do we engage them? Do we seek their feedback on our process as well as our policies? How does our process support their (and ultimately, students’) success?

Peer benchmarking: When did we last review our peers’ policy management processes, whether through conferences, research, or direct outreach? What questions or new ideas did that prompt with respect to our process?

ACUPA: How have we taken advantage of our ACUPA member resources to improve our process? What’s one resource we could utilize in the next month?

In conversations and webinars with other policy administrators, the debate about whether or not to use templates for writing and developing policies continually comes up. A number of institutions mandate the use of one or more templates for their users who want to develop policy and/or procedures documents.

I've worked for the past 25 years in the administrative policies office for Washington State University. We've chosen not to use a template for developing the administrative policies and/or procedures our office publishes. We do have a style guide, but it’s mostly involved with formatting and layout so that sections and policies have a uniform “look.” Our choice has predominantly been based on the idea of providing flexibility to our subject expert departments as they update or add new sections to our long-established administrative policy manuals.

In accordance with WSU's executive Policy on Policies (EP5), departments may begin development of their administrative policy/procedure rough drafts prior to bringing my office into the process or may request our assistance with developing the drafts from the beginning. As subject expert administrators get started, we do occasionally get requests for policy framework guidance from those who are new to policy writing and development.

Here’s a general outline that my office recommends for writing a new policy or policy/procedure section for placement in one of our administrative manuals:

• Overview and/or Policy Statement
  
  It’s sometimes useful to have both. If a section is especially long, placing a set of links to subsections in the document in the overview can be useful. For examples, see the beginnings of WSU's policy sections EP8 and EP38.
  
  In a section that's predominantly procedural, an overview might be more appropriate as a place to provide a summary of or references to the applicable policy.
  
  
• Purpose
  
  A purpose statement provides a brief description of the purpose of the policy and/or activity. In some cases, a purpose statement is provided in an overview or policy statement.
  
  
• Scope
  
  A scope statement describes the limitations or boundaries of the policy/procedure. Some writers choose to combine scope statements/subsections in either an overview or policy statement or within an applicability statement.
  
  
• Applicability
  
  An applicability statement or subsection describes the members of the institution's community (internal and/or external) directly impacted by the policy and/or expected to follow the policy/procedures.
  
  
• Roles and Responsibilities
  
  Roles and responsibilities statements provide a summary of the actions and/expectations each employee or role category is expected to fulfill with relation to the policy/procedures.
  
  
• Requirements
  
  Policy requirements are provided in this subsection. If procedures are included, any required procedural steps would be provided in the order the actions are to occur.
  
  
• Procedures (if applicable)
  
  Some institutions choose to keep policies and procedures separate. At WSU, we have quite a number of combined policy and procedures sections in our administrative manuals. For the most part, we recommend publishing procedures and policy/procedures within our business and safety manuals. However, we do have a small number of executive policies in which the executive administrators insisted upon including both policies and procedures.
  
  
• Definitions
  
  We recommend providing definitions applicable to the policy/procedures in their own subsection, especially if terms are used that are specific to a subject and/or include jargon. If there are only one or two terms that need to be defined, the definitions may be included directly with the reference.
  
  If this subsection is short, it might be placed after the applicability statement. However, if the definitions list is longer than a page, we often recommend placing the subsection at or near the end and providing an internal document link and/or reference, if needed, earlier in the policy.
  
  
• Additional Resources
  An additional resources subsection provides descriptions or lists and references (e.g., website URLs) including, but not limited to, supporting department contacts, state and federal agencies' websites, other supporting or related institutional policies and procedures.

Every policy office and institution handles their policy development process differently, and there's really no right or wrong answer. Does your institution mandate policy/procedure templates? Or make framework recommendations? Things to consider for both you and your users…

NOTE: ACUPA members have access to a number of resources, including templates, samples, and other tools that you may find useful in writing and developing your policies and procedures. To access the Templates and Tools under the Resources tab, sign in as a member.

Policies would not exist without someone to write them. That may or may not be your responsibility. Once they’re written, they need to be reviewed—for content, accuracy, use of template, comprehension, and grammar. If you are involved in policy administration, some aspect of review is bound to be your responsibility. My job affords me the opportunity to both write and review policies to one degree or another, so I see examples of good writing and not so good writing all the time. A common mistake I see when reviewing policy drafts is using one word to mean another. Let me explain what I mean…

Ensure/Insure

These two words used to be synonyms. However, sometime in the 1800s, as insurance policies became more common, the definitions diverged.

• Insure means to have some kind of financial backing for the potential loss of an asset, your health or life, etc. It should only be used when referring to insurance.
• Ensure means to make a promise or guarantee that something will happen.
• Examples:
  1. The real estate agent recommended we insure our barn.
  2. The vice president for human resources will ensure that background checks are conducted on all new hires.

Since/Because

Most people say the word “since” when they mean because. For this reason, acceptance of the two words as synonyms in dialogue is growing. However, when writing formal documents like policies, the difference between the words should be recognized.

• Since refers to a period of time between two events or from the last occurrence of an event.
• Because refers to the reason for something happening.
• Examples:
  1. Since the last time employees had training, the regulations changed.
  2. Because the regulations changed, employees will be required to go through training.

That/Which

The difference between these two words often comes down to a comma. Both are used to provide further explanation of something, but one is used when the explanation is essential to the understanding of what is being described, and the other provides nonessential information.

• Use that when the information is essential, and do not use a comma.
• Use which when the information is nonessential, and put a comma before it.
• Examples:
  1. Information Technology is responsible for maintaining the system that employees use to submit travel requests.
     In this sentence, without the information after the word “that,” IT would not know which system it has to maintain.
  2. Employees must use the travel system, which is maintained by Information Technology, to submit travel requests.
     In this sentence, who maintains the system is irrelevant to the employee’s understanding of how to submit requests.

He/She/They

This is another example of language changing with culture. Once upon a time, we used “one” as the pronoun for anyone. “He” also was acceptable as a less formal option to refer to persons of any sex. As times changed, and women demanded more equality, we began to use “he or she” or “he/she.” As Bob Dylan sang, “the times they are a-changin’” once again, and a more inclusive pronoun is “they.” However, many grammar wonks are not comfortable using a plural pronoun when the noun it describes is singular. Here are some options that may help make everyone happy.

• Use the word “individuals”
  1. Instead of: An employee must include their date of hire on the form.
  2. Write: Individuals must include their date of hire on the form.
• Omit unnecessary pronouns
  1. Instead of: The vice president, or their delegate, will review the application.
  2. Write: The vice president, or designee, will review the application.
• Restructure the sentence
  1. Instead of: When the employee returns from leave, they will need to provide documentation to their supervisor.
  2. Write: Employees need to provide documentation to their supervisors upon returning from leave.

Word usage and the ever-changing rules that apply to the English language fascinate me. Language is a living, breathing organism that grows and morphs as culture demands. This can make it difficult to keep up with the rules. Are there any examples you have come across in your work?

I imagine each of your campuses has a values statement that highlights what you aspire to be and how you want to live your values.  I also imagine many of your campuses needed to rethink their values in light of Black Lives Matter, the pandemic or anti-Asian violence.  How did your campus navigate using terms like ‘people of color’ and BIPOC or anti-Asian or AAPI? 

For some campuses, their values statement provides organizational clarity in moments of crisis.  While others might need to reevaluate their statement to address incongruence between its aspiration to living their values through the code of conduct and what is actually happening in the community.  This means that we need to turn our values into behaviors and actions that positively impact the language we use, how we treat each other, how we see the world, and what is unacceptable.

Why are values so important?

Values guide our strategies, policies, practices and behaviors. They send a consistent message to our colleagues and other stakeholders. They remove ambiguity. They define what is important to us.  Researchers such as Collins and Porras have found that values can inspire discretionary effort, particularly when there is a good ‘cultural fit’ between the organization and its workforce. But we must see the relevance of the values to our interconnectedness for this to happen. We must know what the values mean in practice. People pick up on signals, both big and small, about how to behave, so any behavior that is inconsistent with the values should be stopped.  Recruitment, onboarding and community dialogues help to reinforce the values and build understanding of them.

But, having values isn’t enough, particularly if we want to create the inclusive communities with a sense of belonging that we’re striving to become. To outline how to live our values, we need a code of conduct that serves as an official commitment to the communities we serve about the behaviors we expect. You know the saying, ‘are you walking the walk and talking the talk?’

Tips for your campus code of conduct

How can your campus code of conduct be integrated into your community, that is proactive and supports a healthy culture?  I offer a few tips below.

• Outline a code of conduct that flows from and advances your mission and values.
• Assess your campus’ risk.
• Engage a committee of stakeholders to review its relevance and resonance to social or racial justice.
• Incorporate how to exercise good judgment in decisions and actions:i.e., respect; diversity and inclusion; anti-discrimination, harassment, and bullying; handling conflicts of interest; health and safety; and political activity.
• Publish the code of conduct information in different formats and languages to make it easier to retain and be able to recall important code concepts.
• Create interactive content to provide easy access to information and training.
• List how to report violations, including phone, web, text and anonymously.
• State the possible sanctions for unacceptable behavior.

If you find your campus is trying to embody the values, policies, and practices that are discussed here.  Please look to your values statement and code of conduct as a place to start.  Our campuses must be blended voices of various stakeholders bound together for a common purpose and woven together as the fabric of community, regional and national reflection and discourse.  How else can we put our values into action?

Why effective communication is an essential skill in today’s changing virtual workplace

First, I must start this off by saying that I am not your ordinary policy administrator, and if you are expecting a how-to-write policies blog entry, I must tell you I really tried. As I sit down and put pen to paper on essential ‘what do to when your policy goes wrong’ or ‘writing the perfect EDI statement,’ I find that I get writer’s block. Maybe because I do this every day—and more so because of the multifarious interests and activities in which I have immersed myself over the years—that I want to write about other skills needed in our ever-changing positions that heighten and brighten our roles.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many with a unique opportunity to reinvent our workplace. For most organizations, the future involves a blend of remote and on-site work. This impact throws us policy administrators into presenting and meeting online, where normally we work behind the scenes. Even with my years as a Toastmaster, I still find that the new challenges of hybrid workplace models and endless virtual meetings has presented new trials and experiments and that my speaking skills are put to the test at every meeting.

Have you been asked to present ‘off the cuff’ in a meeting, or forced into the limelight now that you are virtual? Have you been in a meeting where you were on mute (but kept talkin’), where a pet took over, or your presentation online just didn’t go as planned? In a recent meeting, I witnessed a Zoom gone wrong for several reasons. A professional team uhm’d and ah’d their way through a meeting, coupled with some beard picking and the awkward ‘hot potato’ answer that made the meeting seem to go on forever. “I’m sorry, you go.” “no sorry..I…” Well,” …. 5 voices speak at once … then suddenly ‘crickets”. I think it would have added that spark to the meeting if a pet were to take over the screen, but it didn’t happen.

When you present virtually, there are more nuances to showing a polished professional presence—a manner that reflects poise and professionalism, confidence, and capability. Your presentation is all ready to go, but you aren’t. During this time when virtual meetings and online conferences have become the norm rather than the exception, those nuances are worth exploring. While its valuable to work within the parameters of our jobs, speaking and communication skills are essential and sometimes a forgotten art. Here are a few simple reminders:

1. Imagine your audience and know your audience. Get to know who is in the meeting or call and if you don’t know who they are, then imagine you have a friend in the call and talk to them. I will elevate your presence and knowing your audience is essential to a professional image.

2. Watch your background. What can people see behind you? Unmade bed? Not so great. Walk around your office or house and find a pleasant, not too distracting background or put a background on.

3. Adjust your lighting. The light source should come from in front of you. Avoid backlighting – which can make you look like a scary silhouette.

4. Raise your computer. The most flattering angle for the camera to capture your face is from the same level or a little above your face

5. Dress the part. Even though participants can usually only see you from the shoulders up, wear something that looks great on you from head to toe, the better your posture will be and the better you’ll feel, in general. When you feel better, you’re a more relaxed and a more confident presenter.

6. Watch your eyes. When you’re looking at the little black dot (the camera) at the top of your computer screen, your audience will feel like you’re looking at them. If you need to look elsewhere – like on your computer or on your actual desk to refer to your materials, that’s fine. Just make sure that every so often you look at the camera.

7. Watch your hands. Remember that your hands and gestures, playing with your outfit and your hair or beard is very distracting and no matter whether you are in front of an audience or on a video call, be aware of your ‘presenters ticks’ that turn your audience off. If you must scratch, turn off your video.

8. Be Ready. If you are asked an impromptu question and don’t have the answer, defer it by saying “that is a great question, how about I find the answer for the committee and circulate after the meeting or later in the meeting” or “repeat the question, if I understand you correctly… (while doing that you can find your answer). Be honest, if you missed the question, say I’m sorry could you repeat that question and don’t forget to let the moderator know when you have stepped away.

Be patient with yourself and your fellow presenters and learn more about cross-cultural communication skills. There is a great article on Avoiding Cross-Cultural Faux Pas that may help you avoid unintended or embarrassing mistakes with team members from different countries.

Learn to create your own opportunities, attend a workshop, or join a Toastmasters Club to hone your skills even further. Speaking in front of audiences (in person or virtual) is not for everyone, which is why it is essential that you broaden your horizons and take your talent to the next level. You and your future Zoom audience will be glad you did!

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

“Jack of all trades, master of none.” That saying is one I use frequently to describe my job. As a policy administrator, I need to learn all that I can about whichever policy or policies are being developed or revised at a given time. The more I know, the better support I can provide to the policy owner with regard to language, organization of information, and stakeholder input. Researching policy topics is what makes me a jack of all trades.

One of the main ways I learn more on a topic is to look at other institutions’ policies. Benchmarking allows me to identify commonalities with regard to scope, affected groups, exclusions, definitions, etc. ACUPA forums are an easy way to get a handful of policies to review. I also have the policy websites of peer institutions bookmarked, so I can search for topics.

Often, there are relevant laws or regulations that need to be considered. I have the U.S. Code, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and the Indiana General Assembly websites bookmarked – talk about some dry reading! Government agency and institute websites provide a fair amount of information in the form of brochures and FAQs, which makes it much easier to get an understanding of the main points.

Once a policy is approved, I move on to the next one. It’s a cycle that has both pros and cons. I enjoy learning new things, so researching policy topics gives me an opportunity to do that. What I don’t enjoy is realizing a year later that most of the information I packed into my brain has disappeared. That is what makes me a master of none. I’m OK with that, because what never changes in this cycle is that drafting and editing policies is like putting together a puzzle. I am continuously gathering all the pieces and figuring out how to put them together so that they create a cohesive image. Maybe that makes me a master of puzzles.

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.

How Safe Is Your Data? And Who Do You Tell If It's Not?

Data security and data privacy issues aren't new to higher education. But the pandemic years ramped up remote access to all institutional systems and increased administrative awareness of the compliance risks which accompany our increased electronic operations. Not only are administrators increasingly concerned with addressing these risks, but state and federal legislation has increased the requirements for the management and protection of institutional data, as well as notification to members of the public (including students and other clients) regarding data breaches.

My institution, Washington State University, beefed up its policies and procedures on system data and information security in 2020. Along with revising two executive policies (EP8 on data policies and EP37 on information security), our administrative policy office published a new chapter on information security in our Business Policies and Procedures Manual (BPPM) with seven new information security sections. (See BPPM Chapter 87.) And at the end of 2020, we published an executive policy on the requirements and responsibilities related to the university's designation as a HIPAA hybrid entity. (See EP40).

Our administration recently provided the rough drafts of two new BPPM policies to my administrative policy office for draft preparation and approval routing. One is a policy with related procedures regarding responses to information security incidents and breaches. The other concerns responses to breaches of protected health care information (PHI), which is planned for insertion into a new BPPM chapter on information privacy. The two policies will be linked through a new investigation process which is extensively outlined step-by-step and is to be used for both types of information privacy/security breaches. We hope to have these new policy/procedures sections approved and published by the fall, so you're welcome to revisit our BPPM for reference.

In conjunction with these new policies and procedures, our administration is updating the WSU system data and information security policies and procedures to address issues such as protection of WSU systems, services, devices, and data, including systems and data managed for the university by third parties and external cloud systems.

I'm sure that we're not the only institutions who are working on these types of policies. Are you and your administration working on data security and data privacy policies? Have you addressed how your institution will respond to data breaches?

In trying to understand the reasoning behind our administration's request for these policy changes, I did some looking around to see what recently published news and resources might be available. Here's what I found – I hope this information is useful to you.

• https://library.educause.edu/topics/cybersecurity/data-security
  (EDUCAUSE -- Information portal includes links to a number of helpful articles on data security, cloud security, data breaches, and data privacy)
  
  
• https://techbeacon.com/security/why-safe-harbor-best-way-forward-data-protection
  (July 2, 2021; TechBeacon (author: Stan Wisseman)
  
  
• https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/550959-massive-school-data-breach-shows-we-need-better-privacy-policies
  (Apr. 29, 2021; The Hill (authors: Williamson M. Evers and Jonathan Hofer)
  
  
• https://www.brookspierce.com/digital-media-and-data-privacy-law-blog/data-breach-defense-for-educational-institutions
  (June 16, 2021; Brooks Pierce (author: Will Quick) – Article includes steps to minimize risks)
  
  
• Research data breaches:
  https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/6/research-raiders-how-to-protect-collaborative-data
  (June 8 2021; EDUCAUSE; Includes proactive safety steps)
  
  
• Data privacy law changes effective 2023 that may require policy changes:
  https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/10-key-differences-between-the-2023-5939867/
  (July 1, 2021; JD Supra (authors: Mark Brennan, Ryan Woo, Hogan Lovells))

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

I track a fair amount of data with each of the policies in the Purdue University policy library. Currently, I use Excel to manually track all my data. Even to me, this seems a bit archaic with the variety of policy management systems out there. I have looked at a couple vendors, but have stopped short of pursuing a contract because I am afraid I won’t be able to capture all my data.

Some data are pretty standard, such as the date of issue, the responsible executive, the responsible office, and the volume and chapter (see my post from October 2020 on Organizing a Policy Catalog to learn more about the last two). It’s easy to designate a field that captures these data. It is also easy to track the date a policy was last revised. Even systems that are not designed exclusively for policy management can track version dates.

Where I run into trouble is finding a way to automatically track the last date a policy was reviewed. Policies get revised all the time. Titles, phone numbers, and email addresses change frequently, which require an update to the affected policy, and thus, a new version date. Most of the time, however, these small administrative updates do not coincide with a comprehensive review of the policy. If I were to use the version date to determine when a policy is due for review, I would likely have a lot of policies that never get reviewed because the version date never falls outside the review period (which, at Purdue, is every five years).

I also get tripped up when a policy supersedes another policy. This can happen for a number of reasons, such as the title of the policy changing, two policies being combined into one or vice versa, old memos being updated into policies, etc. With my Excel spreadsheet, I am able to track a current policy all the way back to its origin, even if that is a memo from 1952. I can tell you the name and number of the policy or memo that addressed a given subject on a given date, and I can find a copy of that document in our e-archives. I have not had to track anything back to 1952, but I have had instances when our legal counsel needed all the versions of a policy going back several years. I just don’t see how a system could track this kind of serpentine information.

Last, but not least, we allow for interim policies. This means a policy can go into effect without having gone through all the required steps. The policy owner then has six months to finish all the steps and finalize the policy, or request an extension of the interim status. I mark policies as interim and track the six-month deadline in Excel. It seems to me that I would have to continue to track this sort of thing manually even if I had a policy management system.

Maybe I am making things too complicated. Maybe I need to let something go. What do you think?

To be, or not to be, that is the question.” Sorry for the Shakespeare reference, but Hamlet’s soliloquy has application to every campus this year: Should campuses mandate COVID vaccinations for students? For faculty and staff (employees)?

As this debate wages on, I’ve begun daydreaming in my endless Zoom meetings and webinars. I’m having flashbacks of my college literature lectures on how Shakespeare creates a balance with the first six words that Hamlet utters. As Hamlet ponders life and death, he asks which of the two alternatives is nobler, whether to suffer the cruelties of fate silently or to put up a fight against the misfortunes of life that afflict one. This soliloquy’s dramatic purpose is to explain Hamlet’s procrastination in carrying out his purpose, and the mental torture and anguish Hamlet feels if he does not.

As we grapple with the COVID-19 vaccination question, ought we remain steadfastly committed to our purpose to keep our campuses safe? Should we mandate the COVID vaccines as a means to assure our communities? If we don’t, what will happen? Of what great consequence?

The question to mandate the vaccine dominates college plans to shift back from remote to in-person instruction and from remote working to hybrid or fully on campus. Some colleges have held vaccination clinics to get students and employees immunized before they leave for the summer. Many colleges now see that the only way to return to normal and get back to campus is through a required vaccination program as the answer. The goal is to help build confidence that students, faculty and staff will be safe on campus.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not making a legal argument. But we do look to federal, state, and local authorities and the law--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)--for guidance to inform our decision-making.

First, protecting the privacy rights of our students and employees is of the utmost importance. We treat COVID-19 testing, temperature screening results, reports of symptoms, contact tracing, vaccination, or declinations as confidential medical records stored separately under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

But what happens to the prescreening for COVID-19 when the benefits diminish as rates of vaccination increase? Our campus policies need to be consistent and communicated clearly. Some states mandate temperature screening before work shifts, while the CDC recommends the continued utilization of prescreening.

With OSHA in mind, we have a duty to keep our communities free of recognized hazards, and we can consider the COVID-19 virus a danger or a risk to our communities. In so doing, if we adopt a policy that mandates all students and employees must receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the policy must have express medical and religious exemptions. The medical exemption stems from the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against individual medical conditions and requires us to provide individuals with health conditions a “reasonable accommodation.” The religious exemption is protected by The Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you choose to mandate vaccines as a condition of employment, adverse reactions are OSHA recordable events.

Other questions to work out if you decide to mandate. Is there a blanket policy that all employees need to work regardless of vaccination status? Is letting the employee work from home a “reasonable accommodation”? What accommodations will you allow for students? If students don’t comply, are they barred from residence, classes, or entirely from campus? Will you provide paid time off for employees to receive and recover from the vaccine?

One last Hamlet reference. Whatever you decide to do, there will be “slings and arrows” of those who believe mandating the vaccine is an assault on their liberties and others who will think you haven’t done enough to keep them safe if you don’t.

Please keep a watchful eye on the Chronicle’s “List of Colleges That Will Require Students or Employee to Be Vaccinated Against COVID-19.” Often our best lessons are those we learn from our sister institutions.

I wish you well as you grapple with these questions on your campus, and I am confident you will find the best solution to keep your community safe. Be well.

by Gina Kennedy

This past year has proven that no matter what happens, there is always a way to get through it. Working in an academic institution, the halls are usually buzzing with chatter from students, faculty and visitors, but now, just silence for the most part. A year ago, if you had a question or wanted to share an idea, you walked down the hall, but now you Zoom. We are all learning how to do the same work differently. Of course, it can be scary – most changes are – but that does not mean it will not lead to something amazing, right? Reflecting on this year, I will try to value the human connection a little bit more.

I am grateful for my ACUPA membership connection to help during these unprecedented times. ACUPA represents more than 150 institutions in the USA and abroad, and  I miss the in-person conferences when I could connect, break bread, share a favorite story and learn something new. When we can get together again, we will…but for now we all Zoom.

As policy professionals we navigate around the emerging changes and concerns, we are always evolving and moving forward. Being a member of ACUPA gives me a forum to solicit advice and share policy issues with ‘like’ colleagues (we really are policy unicorns). In our supercharged Zoom world, it is hard not to feel distanced or that there is too much change, frustrated that we cannot conference or socialize, it gives me Zoom fatigue sometimes just thinking about it.

Socrates writes, "The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new." These are sage words to live by, and a great way to kick-start something with new perspective and a heavy dose of positivity. So, here are four ideas on how to make the most of your ACUPA membership.

1. Member Spotlight

It’s important in a group as large and diverse as ACUPA to put yourself out there and introduce yourself.  Each month, ACUPA spotlights one individual in an effort to bring you, our unique and diverse group of members, together to network, share, and acquire knowledge. To be a spotlight participant, send us your information.

2. Be Prepared and Make Every Meeting Valuable

Many do not realize the preparation that should go into each meeting role. The better prepared you are for a position, the more you can learn, help others, contribute to the meeting, and energize the organization. Share your ideas – creative members make all the difference to strengthen the connection.

3. Turn Challenges into Opportunities

Now more than ever, the challenges of COVID and post-COVID provide policy administrators with a wealth of new tools, and I am sure some old tricks of the trade have been used to migrate through the changes needed for our organizations. Having a resource organization like ACUPA established to explore policy processes and to discuss specific policy issues is a great reason to ensure your membership is up to date, that you are participating and that you promote the organization with other policy administrators so they too can turn challenges into opportunities.

4. Be the Dose of Positivity - Engage and Inspire

Do you have a story to tell? Write a guest blog, offer to do a presentation, share with your colleagues!

As we move into the summer semester, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we’ve been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education.

• Title IX Public Hearing Scheduled for June
  By Alexis Gravely, Inside Higher Ed, May 7, 2021
• What Colleges Require the COVID-19 Vaccine?
  By Staff Writers, Best Colleges, May 6, 2021
• Johns Hopkins Increasing Minimum Wage to $15
  By Mychael Schnell, The Hill, May 6, 2021
• Students Are on the Move. Their Financial Aid Is Not
  By Juana Sanchez and Lara Couturier, Inside Higher Ed, May 6, 2021
• COVID-19: Updates for Canada’s Universities
  By UA/AU, University Affairs, May 5, 2021
• At Some Colleges, Remote Work Could Be Here to Stay
  By Lindsay Ellis, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 5, 2021
• Hundreds Protest over Yale Contract Talks
  By Mary E. O'Leary, New Haven Register, May 1, 2021
• COVID-19 Has Altered Student Expectations for Data Privacy
  By Adam Stone, EdTech Focus on Higher Education, April 28, 2021
• Keeping an Eye on Biden Administration's Higher Education Policies
  By Anna Mazarakis, Princeton Alumni Weekly, May 2021 Issue
• Protecting and Ensuring Student Privacy
  By Mary Ellen Buzzelli, Inside Higher Ed, April 16, 2021
• Mandatory COVID Vaccines for Students: Legal Pain Point or Panacea?
  By Michael Vernick, Brennan Meier, Molly Whitman, and Jessica Mannon, University Business, April 16, 2021

ACUPA’s professional blog, Policy Matters, began as a quarterly newsletter in 2013 and transitioned to the blog format in 2018 to reflect changing methods of communication. Read on to learn more about new members of the Policy Matters editorial team in their own words.

Gina Kennedy

Governance Practitioner, Policy Wonk, disAbility Advocate, Good listener-Hear differently #cochlear bionic (ear) 2020 and gifted napper.

After 16 years in the university corporate governance sector, I want to “rumble with vulnerability,” so when I saw the call out to be a member of this committee, I thought this was an excellent way to start a longstanding desire on my endless list of ”must do”! I also asked myself, if I was new to the sector or to the board, where would I start? A blog is a great way to share knowledge, insight and try something new.

Rosalynn Feagins

Rosalynn Feagins from Texas here. Currently serving the University of Denver as assistant treasurer and formerly a banking professional. My first love is traveling, using unusual words and learning something new every day! I’m excited to share and add to my policy knowledge.

Dr. Lisa Biagas

I am the current Senior Vice President of Human Resources at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (PAFA). A strategic and hands-on leader, I have proven experience developing and executing impactful people strategies and DEIB programs. I am a thought partner, a change agent, and a consensus builder.

On a personal note, I am grandmother to 6-year-old, Cassidy, and her dog, Taco. When not losing to Cassidy in a marathon game of Uno, I spend my Saturdays as an amateur landscape architect. I get great joy in planning the design, then toiling the soil and planting new trees and shrubs. When not in the yard, I can be found reading a mystery novel, specifically crime fiction and thrillers, and watching British detective TV shows.

Hot Topics

Policy work happens in an everchanging environment. Let us know what topics you’d like to see covered in future blogs by submitting a comment below.

An important aspect of policy writing and editing is wordsmithing, i.e., making changes to improve the clarity and style, as opposed to content. The language choices we make can affect a reader's impression of our organization and affect their emotional, as well as intellectual, ability to "hear" the information we're trying to convey.

The words we choose may change over time, as our understanding and appreciation of the impact of our language changes. As my administrative policy office approaches writing and editing new policies and/or updating existing policies, we try to use "new eyes" to view and plan for changes to the words we include, as well as the content we're asked to communicate.

While the wording in an existing or new policy may have been through a number of iterations and appear to still be applicable or agreed upon, it can be useful for policy administrators to review the language for possible updates. Here are some choices to consider:

Inclusive language -- Use inclusive language, replacing oppressive terms with terms that support persons and reduce bias. Inclusive word choices reflect awareness of and respect for the differences inherent in all individuals. Approaching language from a perspective of kindness and respect makes it easier for our audiences to feel safe and more open to accepting the content. It's important to remember that understanding is a function of the heart, as well as the mind.

Plain talk – Plain talk allows readers to find what they need, understand what they find, and be able to use what they find to meet their needs. Even if not mandated for your institution, as it is for federal agencies and Washington state agencies, following plain talk guidelines can greatly increase the usability of your policies and procedures.

Jargon -- Avoid jargon (special words or expressions used by a particular profession or group that are difficult for others to understand), when possible. Define the words when jargon terms must be used. When writing for institution-wide audiences, it's advisable to write your policies and procedures to be read and understood by non-subject matter experts.

Positive vs. negative -- Make positive statements, rather than negative statements, whenever possible. Positive phrasing is easier to understand than negative. And a positive tone affects how readers react to the writing, even just subconsciously.

Useful References

Here are some related references you may find useful:

• Inclusive Language Glossary (Crowdsourced list created by Anti-Racism in Academia (ARIA)):

  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EK39wLk4DgVvye8UagK9l8BnxxaETqioqOuTZ21LNNU/edit#gid=0
  

• Guidelines for Inclusive Language (Linguistic Society of America):
  https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/guidelines-inclusive-language
  

• Plain Language Guidelines (Plain Language Action and Information Network, with support from the U.S. General Services Administration):
  https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines

Have you ever written a policy that took hours of research, conversations, and meetings and years to get approved? Then, months or even years are dedicated to implementation and operationalizing the policy. Program evaluation can take place at various stages of the policy process to assess progress, milestones, and data amongst other things. Then what? When do you evaluate your policy and related programs and how?

The most common stage for program evaluation to take place is the evaluation and termination stage, when policies are evaluated against how successful they were at meeting their objectives (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2007). Program evaluations focus on the inputs (resources) and outputs because program implementations are meant to be successful and require resources, which are increasingly scarce. Focusing on the level of resources used against the outcomes is important to funders. In other words, what did we get for our money? Over the years, evidence-based reporting has increased in popularity amongst public and nonprofit sectors (Emerson, 2009). Organizations need to show apparent, demonstrated and proven effectiveness. Apparent effectiveness is the short-term result, indicating, through documentation, the program is being utilized (Emerson, 2009). Demonstrated effectiveness refers to measuring the impact of the program (Emerson, 2009). Lastly, proven effectiveness, a scientifically proven measurement of a program’s success (Emerson, 2009). Both demonstrated and proven effectiveness utilize a third party evaluator to gauge the effectiveness (Emerson, 2009).

After our last policy implementation, we regrouped with our customers and discussed areas for continued refinement, improvement, and revisions. Even though we sought input and held focus groups prior to implementation, we still had opportunity to improve.

As you prepare your next policy implementation, think ahead to how you evaluate your program. Can you deliver evidence-based reporting? Can you demonstrate the public policy need was met? To find out, engage with your stakeholders and customers before, during, and after to seek feedback. If data is available to help evaluate, utilize that as well.

References

• Emerson, J. (2009). But does it work? How to best assess program performance. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 29-30.
• Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (2007). Handbook on public policy analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Many organizations are pivoting to an online or hybrid work environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To adapt, some organizations are developing policies on remote work and flexible schedules.

When developing policies related to remote work, consider impacts on:

• Access to vaccine for those unable to work remotely
• Accessibility of faculty and staff to students
• Connectivity and IT support
• Employee wellness and staying emotionally connected virtually
• Equipment purchasing and lending for remote work
• Equity of individuals allowed to work remotely (front desk staff, senior leadership, etc.)
• Facility and space usage and planning
• Information and records security and privacy
• Performance, conduct and time management
• Workers compensation coverage
• Working out-of-state or out-of-country (tax implications and privacy laws)

Resources

The following articles, while not specifically about higher education, provide useful policy guidelines for our organizations:

• https://www.fedscoop.com/agency-leaders-anticipate-post-pandemic-hybrid-work-environment/
• https://www.density.io/blog/returning-to-workplace-after-covid-19

For Future Thought

• How has your organization responded to the need for policies on remote work and flexible schedules?
• What should other organizations consider when developing remote work policies and procedures?
• How has your experience been working remotely or on-campus during the pandemic?

When I stop to think about the enormity of what we’re tasked to do, it almost sounds like an impossible riddle: How can one effectively manage a living machine with hundreds of interlocking and evolving parts, each owned by different entities and moving at different speeds along separate but intertwining paths? As policy administrators, we know it’s not so much a riddle as it is just another day in the job. 

At Utah Valley University, our policy administration process involves tracking and managing hundreds of policy drafts and documents through separate review and approval stages, coordinating the necessary entities and stakeholders from drafting to review to approval of each individual draft, and publishing and maintaining approved policy documents (both publicly online for current versions and in a digital archive for those no longer effective). And this represents just a fraction of the responsibilities and services with which our office is tasked. Even under normal circumstances, effectively managing our office’s complex workload can be challenging. Toss in a global pandemic and a sudden, unceremonious switch to a digital-only environment, and we were left scrambling to adapt—an exercise in simultaneously reinventing the wheel while still keeping the cogs in motion.  

In the past, technology was a supplement to our processes, never the backbone. We utilized a combination of both third-party and in-house developed applications to manage different areas of our responsibilities: project management software (Monday) to track development and progress, cloud storage (Box) to share drafts, email newsletters (Outlook) and blog posts (online) to inform the campus community of policy developments, and our own homegrown policy publication software (TOPS), which allows us to upload and publish policy drafts in different stages of development and following approval. And while this worked fine for us in the pre-COVID past, it was admittedly never optimal, and its disadvantages have become even more obvious and obstructing now more than ever.  

Consequently, we have been searching for better ways to optimize our office’s processes for this new digital-only landscape and beyond. After nearly a year of adapting as we go, we now have a better idea of the benefits and challenges of remote work in relation to the unique needs of our office. We’re now working with a business process analyst to decide between purchasing a comprehensive out-of-box policy management application or custom building our own tools within Teams and other Office applications.  

Both options come with advantages and drawbacks. Purchasing an out-of-box application is a quick and relatively painless solution, but finding one that will work seamlessly with our institution’s complex policy process has been a challenge. Many of these policy management applications include additional features that are not applicable to our process while missing features we do need. Additionally, the initial hurdle of implementation and ongoing licensing costs and training are also considerations. And while building our own solutions would allow us the flexibility and customization needed, the time needed to complete the project is time we spend in the current state with our current challenges. 

However, I know our office isn't alone in the growing pains we've faced over the past year. I think most of us fortunate enough with the flexibility to transition to remote work have experienced both the challenges and benefits of this new digital landscape. And I've been wondering how others have reinvented their own wheels. For those of you who have used policy management applications, which have you used and what have your experiences been? Have you found them to have helped in the transition to and continued practice of remote work? What challenges do you still have? And if your institution doesn’t use licensed policy management software, what other solutions does your office implement to aid with your processes? Have you encountered additional challenges with continued remote work? And how has your office adapted to these challenges?

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

Tomorrow, Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States. My hope is that the ceremony is the most notable event of the day. My fear is that we will see more violence.

I do not have statistics, but it seems to me that the past six to eight months have collectively been one of the most violent periods in recent U.S. history. Protests turning into riots in nearly every city in the country. So much anger, so much antipathy, so much intolerance, so much hypocrisy. Would we see this much violence if we weren’t in a pandemic? Would we see this much violence if we had different leadership? Was all of this bound to happen no matter what?

We are cut off from the social safety nets we take for granted, the in-person conversations, laughter, and physical contact that normally temper our negative thoughts. We are mired instead in online communications—emails, texts, tweets, posts—that are truncated and lacking in nuance. We are hit with headlines, videos, and photos that highlight the worst events in our communities and across our nation. Healthy discourse struggles to see the light of day.

It is too easy to say that there is nothing I can do about it. True, I do not have any way to speed up distribution of vaccines or stop angry mobs from storming the Capitol. I may not have the ability to influence members of Congress or even members of my local community. I do have, however, the ability to touch the lives of my close family and friends. I can talk to them over the phone or on a virtual platform instead of only texting. I can plan safe, individual encounters with them. I can choose to limit how much news I watch and read. I can immerse myself in activities that boost my mood. For me, that includes doing puzzles, reading fiction, playing games with my husband, and dreaming up vacations for when this is all over. These are the things that keep me going, that give me hope for better days ahead.

And maybe, just maybe, the few minutes I spend typing a post for ACUPA’s blog that has nothing to do with policy administration will allow me to connect with one or two readers. What are you doing to keep yourself going?

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

Does your institution number its policies? Do you sometimes wonder why? I had the opportunity early on in my policy administrator role to get rid of our policy numbers. Upon further examination, I chose not to. Here’s why.

Purdue University’s catalog contains approximately 120 policies and standards. This number may seem big or small, depending on your perspective. Either way, the number is large enough to me to warrant an effective numbering scheme.

Our policy numbers have three components: volume (Roman numeral), chapter (letter), and number. For example, our policy on policies is number V.C.1. Volume five, chapter C in that volume, and the first policy in that chapter. If you’re curious to know more, visit our policy website for a full description of the numbering scheme. I have heard the criticism that nobody should be expected to remember a policy’s number, and, indeed, I definitely do not know the numbers of individual policies. However, I do use the numbers in two very important ways.

First, I use the number in the name of the page that the policy is posted to on our website. So, the URL for our policy on policies ends with vc1. The URL becomes a static address that can be updated with new versions of the policy whenever it needs to be changed. This means that any other page or website that is linking to that policy will always have a functioning link. If the policy is withdrawn or superseded, we remove the text of the policy and put a note referring visitors to the policy archive and/or to the new policy, so the link is still useful—no 404 error codes.

The second way that I use policy numbers is tracking. On occasion, policy titles change. We add a word, take a word away, or completely rename it for one reason or another. The number of the policy does not change, so I can still find it on my master policy list in the same place, and I can note the previous title for reference. My master policy list tracks the dates of every version of a policy and whether that policy superseded or was superseded by another policy. For this purpose, it is much simpler to refer to policies by their numbers, rather than titles. The second part of policy tracking is finding prior versions of a policy in our archives. I just search by the policy number, and all the incarnations of that policy come back in the search results.

If you are on the fence about numbering your policies, I strongly encourage you to do so. It has made several aspects of my job easier over the years.

Given that colleges and universities are facing daunting economic challenges, one strategy to raise funds to support educational outcomes is to seek a public-private partnership. Metropolitan State University of Denver (MSU Denver) has faced chronic underfunding from the state of Colorado legislature since its inception in 1965—in part, some argue, due to political bias against the university’s mission as a “College of Opportunity” for those Coloradans and others who might not have access to higher education. As necessity is the mother of invention, underfunding led to some creative solutions.

For example, when I managed MSU Denver’s curriculum process, I was approached by a faculty member who asked me to help her and other faculty in the engineering, aerospace science, math, and computer science fields to develop an interdisciplinary degree program in advanced manufacturing. The program would be used to attract talented students who could go on to become part of Colorado’s aerospace workforce. The program also would help attract investor dollars to build much-needed classroom and lab spaces. While the advancement team was looking for a one-time donation to fund construction of a new, state-of-the-art building, no takers stepped up. So administration got creative and proposed a lease opportunity. MSU Denver and York Space Systems became partners, and the 142,000-square-foot building opened in 2017.

York now rents the top floor of the four-floor building as an office and workspace to build satellites. Students in the advanced manufacturing, aerospace, and engineering programs gain skills working for a high-tech company without having to juggle a long commute from class. The internship and scholarship programs serve as an ongoing investment in human capital for York and provide a continual source of revenue for MSU Denver to support student learning. The reciprocal nature of the relationship brings ongoing benefits to both partners. While identifying the right fit was a challenge, the benefits far outweigh the effort.

I took a moment to enjoy the fruits of my labor when I recently got a call from my colleague in the advanced manufacturing program saying, “York wants to know—what’s our animal policy?” I was pleased to hear that, in addition to building satellites, they are integrating themselves into our community with a Bring-Your-Pets-to-Work Day.

As we continue the fall semester, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we’ve been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education.

• Class Notes: The gender poverty gap, COVID-19’s impact on college students, and more
  By Ember Smith and Richard V. Reeves, The Brookings Institution, Sept. 9, 2020
• A Perception Problem About Free Speech
  By Greta Anderson, Inside Higher Ed, Sept. 29, 2020
• University of California must stop all use of SAT and ACT in admissions, judge orders
  By Michael Burke, Ed Source, Sept. 1, 2020
• Accommodations in the Time of COVID
  By Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper, Talent Management and HR, Aug. 31, 2020
• UW System: Registration is now open for national public summit on preventing sexual harassment in higher education
  WisBusiness.com, Sept. 29, 2020
• 4 COVID-era Cybersecurity Threats CISOs are Confronting
  By Matt Zalaznick, University Business, Aug. 20, 2020
• California Bill Likely Conflicts with New Title IX Regulation
  By Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, Education Dive, Aug. 28, 2020

My last blog post occurred in June, about three months into the 2020 pandemic. Institutionally, we were already experiencing a sea of change as having merged with another college forming a branch to the main campus location. At the time, the merger was just eight months old with a new name, a new identity as one college and two distinct cultures.

In March, we were well into our spring semester, when the State of New Jersey’s governor mandated by executive order for its citizenry to stay at home due to the pandemic. This created a perfect storm of events that intensified the velocity of change, necessitating the college to refocus its energy toward switching face-to-face classes to an entirely online environment during spring break so that returning students could finish out their semester online. This mandate was the most restrictive of the governor’s executive orders. Other mandates have since followed guided by the state’s The Road Back plan structured in four stages, with the last stage titled, “New Normal.” As of this writing, New Jersey remains in stage two, so we have a way to go before hitting the last stage and can move on to experience whatever the “new normal” brings.

Based on fluctuations in New Jersey’s COVID-19 health data, the leadership of the college made the decision to continue conducting all classes online through the fall semester and intends to reevaluate the plan for the 2021 spring semester at a later date. With state-approved protocols in place regarding social distancing, capacity considerations, face coverings, and heightened cleaning, employees are now able to return to both campuses to keep vital services operational, while those who are able to perform their job functions remotely can do so in a combination of in-person and telecommuting designed to reduce overall campus population during this stage of The Road Back plan. Only classes that entail hands-on skill development as required by accrediting bodies and/or for credential completion are being offered in a hybrid format with a combination of online and face-to-face classes adhering to all mandated protocols.

Needless to say, how policy development and/or revisions are handled has changed dramatically. We were just getting started on collective policy review with our branch colleagues when the pandemic changed how we would proceed to conduct business. Understandably, most of our requests for policy assistance revolve around current policy revision and procedural addenda specifically related to the impact of COVID-19, which by necessity is a fluid process as existing mandates change in response to the pandemic situation.

In addition to keeping up with the evolving policy changes, our office was in the midst of completing the last aspects of our three-year strategic plan with an assortment of internal and external events planned. Like every in-person event or meeting planned across the college, everything became virtual almost overnight and old processes needed to be adapted quickly to work effectively in an online environment. After a bit of a virtual platform learning curve, many dropped calls, delayed internet audio and garbled responses, we have fortunately developed a sort of “new normal” rhythm, while at the same time, maintaining a sense of humor as dogs, cats or kids add their special magic to our work sessions. On a positive note, we were able to complete the strategic plan and it will head to the printer this week, and of course, our policy work continues.

As I reflect on where we were going into March and where we are now – it remains a huge challenge with plenty of uncertainty. However, I also marvel at what has been accomplished in the interim through sustaining open minds, the spirit of collaboration, respect, and no end of hard work.

Oh, and when we get to the other side of this pandemic, we will need to gather up all our notes and be poised and ready to overhaul our emergency operational plan to add a detailed section on global pandemics, while simultaneously pondering the “new normal” in which we find ourselves.

Innovations in Policy Draft Development that Saved Me Time and Tears

It was 10 p.m. on the night before the new draft of our Title IX policy was due for review by our Chief Policy Officer, the final step before it could move to President’s Council and on to Trustees for (fingers crossed) approval and adoption. It was crunch time, just a couple of weeks out from the new Title IX rule’s August 14th deadline, and I was elbows deep and hours into a heavy edit of what I was promised was the final draft from its writing committee. That’s when the emails started.

First, it was, “Just one more quick thing . . .” and “Can you change these lines, too?” then a flurry of discussions, and with it, more and more requested revisions, which I dutifully and meticulously incorporated. And then it happened. The dreaded “I made some additional changes to the draft throughout; see the attached draft.” No, no. I protested internally. That is not the Draft. I have the Draft. That is the Ghost of Drafts Past with (groan) new revisions!

If you have ever edited anything for anyone ever, you likely just visibly shuddered at the above scenario. Every editor will inevitably, at one point or—more likely—many points, experience the same sinking feeling when the sanctity of version control is casually disregarded. But with documents as important as policies (especially ones as critical and time sensitive as the one mentioned above), the balance between editorial courtesy and non-discretionary necessity becomes heavily (and rightfully) skewed toward the latter. So, what’s a policy editor to do, besides swallow her tears and play a very long, very high-stakes game of Spot the Differences? Which is, inevitably, exactly what I did for the next few hours of my evening.

The following morning, I woke from a (dismally short) sleep and decided something had to change about our editorial process. Over the past few months of remote work, our institution has embraced using Microsoft Teams to keep in touch with co-workers and collaborate on projects, but, at the time, we were still using shared Box folders to store working drafts and their numerous past versions. And while Box integrates well enough with Teams, files hosted through Box do not have the same advanced capabilities as files hosted on Microsoft’s cloud services SharePoint and OneDrive. As long as we continued to insist on keeping files scattered on Box, in emails, and on our internal drives, we truly weren’t utilizing Teams to its full potential, and we were creating a lot more unnecessary work for ourselves. Little did we realize we were needlessly complicating a system already automated and optimized through Office 365.

How it Works and How it Works for Us

Like ours, many institutions have adopted Teams for remote communication and project collaboration as we all continue to navigate the new normal of current events. But many Teams users are not aware of what happens behind the scenes of Teams. Every file (including all documents, notebooks, wikis, Planner tasks, calendar entries, and everything in between) shared or created within a Teams channel is uploaded to SharePoint (or OneDrive in the case of files shared in chats). (If you use Teams and haven’t already, I highly encourage you to take a few minutes and explore what your SharePoint site looks like. Think of it as Teams’ central repository—because it is.)

The benefits of this, besides embedded organization and easy access to needed files without leaving Teams, are the integrated collaboration and cross-app features you only get with SharePoint and OneDrive files (Microsoft hosted files play nice with Microsoft apps, go figure!). These features include automatic saving (no more losing progress), automatic version record keeping (eliminating the need for multiple version files), and, most importantly for our office, collaborative editing between multiple authors in real time (goodbye, Ghosts of Drafts Past).

By embracing and encouraging the use of Teams instead of email for sending drafts and Box for housing versions, we were able to ensure that a single working draft was always live and available for authors, editors, and reviewers. Consequently, the next round of review and revision for our Title IX policy went far more smoothly. We were able to work together, simultaneously, on a living document in real time and chat seamlessly with each other as needed, eliminating the need for tracking down relevant email chains, sending out and downloading multiple drafts, re-uploading them, and other general draft babysitting and housekeeping. The sanctity of the working draft was respected without effort. It was a game changer.

Since then, we have integrated this process into how we handle every document that comes through our office, and we continue to explore additional ways to utilize the automation, collaboration, and project management features embedded within SharePoint. It might be dramatic to say that it has revolutionized our editorial process, but it certainly has spared me a lot of extra work and frustration (not to mention, late-night tears).

For those who are interested in utilizing collaborative editing but need additional guidance, Microsoft provides tips and tutorials on their support pages, a few of which I will link below:

• Collaborate on files in Microsoft Teams
• Document collaborations and co-authoring
• Collaborate in Word tutorial

Metropolitan State University of Denver began to shift its policy-development process to an online environment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Online editing, file sharing, and voting help to promote transparency in MSU Denver’s decision-making process by providing access to policy drafts during deliberation. However, as access to campus is currently limited to protect the health of the university community, the need to develop policies virtually has become more important.

Share Resources and Come to Consensus Online

Coming to consensus in an online environment can be challenging. Policies often impact multiple constituents and offices that are responsible for communication and implementation. Microsoft Teams offers video-conferencing and live-chat features that allow multiple participants to be viewed on-screen and to upload policy templates, feedback, and other resources, such as links to related legislation, in real-time during virtual meetings. Features include:

• Video conferencing
• Group editing of drafts and presentation slides
• Live chat and brainstorming
• Screen and image sharing
• Branded backgrounds and logos

Don’t Forget the Fun Stuff!

Keeping things light, even during times of social and organizational upheaval, helps to calm frazzled nerves and to create a sense of community among policy developers. Sometimes our only option is to smile and support each other. The following can be shared over email, in a Teams chat, or on social media:

• Funny memes and GIFs
• Pet and kid pics
• Recipes and home-gardening tips
• Encouraging thoughts and quotes
• Reading and viewing lists
• Yoga and exercise videos

At last year’s ACUPA conference, I attended a session called “What Have We Been Missing? Adding Equity Review to Our Policy Process,” presented by Michele Gross from the University of Minnesota. Michele presented information about UM’s “equity lens” facet of their policy review process in which policies are evaluated for unforeseen, undue burdens for groups who have experienced exclusion and/or discrimination. The presentation was informative and thought provoking. I returned to my campus motivated to implement something similar. This post describes the process of realizing this change on my campus. 

By way of context, I work at a college of almost 13,000 students with the only student demographic majority being women. Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC) is also relatively new, founded in 2005, and serves large populations of first-generation, immigrant, and students of color. We have approximately 600 faculty and 400 staff. Our policy process involves the following stages: 

1.      Informal review by me 

2.      Informal review (which we call coordination) by senior leadership 

3.      Final reviews by our Legal Affairs team and me 

4.      Final approval by the president’s cabinet.  

Despite a growing level of diversity among our faculty and administration, many faculty and administrators are from different demographic groups than our students. Our policy process is relatively streamlined, which has many advantages, but the equity review presentation I attended highlighted one of the disadvantages: A potentially narrow view of the impact of our policies, made even more possible when creators and reviewers of policies aren’t members of the groups potentially impacted by the policies.  

Consequently, when I returned from the conference, I began plans to pilot test an equity review stage in our policy review process. After assembling a proposal describing logistics and potential benefits, I met with my supervisor and her supervisor (then, the president’s chief of staff). They were both on board quickly and the idea was presented to the president’s cabinet for their feedback. Because the cabinet is the final approver of all policies and provides oversight for the policy process itself, their support was necessary. They agreed to a pilot test of the idea, so I updated our policy review flowchart and created a memo outlining the process and the reasons behind it. After some discussion, the equity review stage was inserted early in the process, between my informal review and senior leadership coordination. I also assembled a team of campus officials with responsibilities with relevant groups who would compose our equity review team. Because our campus is relatively new and leanly staffed, we don’t have many of the cultural centers that other campuses do. Here is our current equity review team and, where not obvious, the groups for which they review: 

• Associate Dean for Advising Programs: Students receiving mentoring for academic renewal or enhancement 
• Executive Director for Diversity and Equity Compliance: Groups covered under federal EEO and Title IX policy 
• Veterans Success Manager 
• Executive Director of Financial Aid Services: Pell Grant recipients and other low income students 
• Director of Disability Services 
• Senior Associate Vice President, Student Affairs: A wide variety of other student groups that don’t currently have dedicated staff, such as LGBTQIA+, returning students, etc. 

After identifying the group, I met with them to gauge their interest and invite their suggestions about maximizing the success of the group. All agreed that equity review would provide a beneficial level of review and potentially provide them with a professional development opportunity to become more involved with policy creation and review.   

If you’ve managed any type of organizational change, you know how strongly institutional context and timing influence its success, and our equity review implementation was no different. In particular, a series of staffing changes created an environment conducive to success, although this could have easily had the opposite effect. In the past year, a new president and four new VPs (two in newly created divisions) have been hired and three new deans (out of seven total) have either been hired or are in the final hiring stages. This has led to a slow-down in normal policy review activity, but also created fertile ground for new ideas to take root, since the entire campus was in change mode. 

The equity review team has reviewed a few policies and we are still in the early stages of implementing equity review, but every sign so far has been positive. I have every reason to believe that it will become a permanent feature of our policy review process. We are currently exploring the addition of staff who work with international students and athletes to the equity review team.  

For anyone interested in making such a change, I highly recommend UM’s equity lens website and Michele’s presentation from the 2019 conference and the webinar she and her colleagues presented last week, both available under Resources on ACUPA’s website. Additionally, tying the effort to campus culture and traditions strengthens its chance of success, and most campuses have a mission or vision statement or some other foundational document that describes the institution’s commitment to diversity that can add support to the effort. A variety of administrative units, such as those whose staff work with underrepresented groups, also may be engaged to build a coalition of support for anyone wanting to implement such a change on their campus. 

Institutional change is hard and a gradual process is best accomplished through a series of baby steps taken over months or years to bring it to fruition. That said, Rowan College of South Jersey (RCSJ) has undergone extreme change on a short timeline, which defies my above logic but perhaps speaks to institutional resiliency.

RCSJ was established as a new institution with the Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s (MSCHE) approval on July 1, 2019. The merger joined two community colleges from two counties into one, with the caveat MSCHE would be back in approximately six months to assess if headway was being made based on the original substantive change request information. A few of areas the MSCHE team would review when they returned to campus were policy development progress, institutional effectiveness, and strategic planning development. All of these areas fall within the President’s Office under the Institutional Policy umbrella.

The Institutional Policy Office in the interim has made progress in these three areas. Policies were systematically reviewed with stakeholder meetings held on both campuses, the practice of electronic review and tracking of revisions continued, and the policy library was maintained. Work has begun and continues on aligning the two campuses’ institutional effectiveness practices. And finally, a timeline and strategy to implement a three-year strategic plan process was developed in October 2019, the initial kick-off took place in November 2019, which started a cascade of in-person meetings over the next several months, with the final product ready to present to the RCSJ Board of Trustees pinned down to June or July 2020.

Seven months into the merger, MSCHE did return for a review site visit on March 10, 2020. While preparations for this visit were underway, the day prior to MSCHE’s arrival, the State of New Jersey’s Governor issued both a Public Health Emergency and a State of Emergency Executive Order due to the COVID-19 outbreak. This was followed by another Executive Order on March 16, suspending all face-to-face instruction effective March 18. The following week the college was closed for spring break. This break was when faculty and staff shifted a two-campus commuter college, accustomed to in-person delivery, to an entirely online delivery more than mid-way through the college’s spring semester and strategized how to effectively and immediately communicate this abrupt change to the student body. No small feat, as others I am certain can attest.

New Jersey, with its close proximation to New York City, was significantly impacted by the pandemic, exerting huge financial implications for businesses, schools, and residents. Subsequently, the governor on March 21 issued Executive Order 107 directing all New Jersey residents to stay at home until further notice. At the time of this writing, the State of New Jersey is re-opening in phases; I and my colleagues remain working from home as higher education has not been released to return to work. All summer session classes and student support services will continue to be provided online --- not ideal, but doable.

From a policy stand point, all policy work was already done electronically, so no problem there. What has been unfortunate is the abrupt move from face-to-face meetings with policy owners to a web-based format with frustratingly poor connectivity at times, particularly when our two campuses are in the midst of building rapport and a collaborative foundation. In addition, due to the pandemic, the alignment of institutional effectiveness is now on hold until we can return to campus, and the last two in-person dinner meetings to review the strategic plan’s finalized goals and objectives with the internal and external constituent groups were forced by necessity to an online format. The strategic plan final draft is complete and ready for presentation at our virtual board meeting in July.

We live in a new era of complexities that will certainly define a new normal and change our practices socially, personally, and professionally. We are in the center of a perfect storm with a trifecta of pressures converging:  the rising anxiety and stress due to escalating coronavirus deaths, massive unemployment generating financial insecurity, and the disturbing recent events calling forth understandable nation-wide civil unrest. These are difficult times and as educators we face many daunting challenges, but we are also positioned to make things better by showing understanding and respect for all.

To end on a positive note, out of darkness comes a sliver of light. Remember the strategic plan I mentioned was about to be published? This document will now have a companion piece that will be a strategic diversity, equity, and inclusion action plan and will serve as its foundation. It may even preface the overarching strategic plan with a “holding a space” notation within for a future insertion. That is what I would call “belt and suspenders”! The design has and will now become the talk of many of our future virtual meetings. And let’s not forget policy work that is tethered tightly to the strategic plan. Our important work goes on. The storm will clear.

A better way is on its way.

Stay well --- stay healthy.

The "new normal": institutional policy changes in response to COVID-19

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.

**The views expressed in this blog are my personal views and do not represent the official position of Metropolitan State University of Denver or ACUPA.**

When I drafted the expedited policy clause in Metropolitan State University of Denver’s “policy on policy,” which allows the MSU Denver president to enact interim policies “to address legal requirements or a significant institutional risk,” I did not have a worldwide, coronavirus pandemic in mind. However, as the daughter of two Vietnam vets and the wife of a military historian, I knew that an organizational threat might come from somewhere (or something) unexpected.

Balancing Inclusivity and Operational Effectiveness

MSU Denver’s policy process is designed to be inclusive and transparent. New and revised policies are reviewed by MSU Denver’s President’s Cabinet, by students and employees who serve on the Policy Advisory Council, by the shared governance groups, and by the university community at-large during an open review period. The inclusive process balances efficiency with effectiveness, in that publishing a policy quickly might not mean that a policy is communicated and implemented effectively.

Some circumstances, however, require quick, decisive action when it comes to policies. To address the current situation, MSU Denver’s leadership has instituted several interim policies related to moving courses online, working remotely, and allowing flexible grading options for students for the spring 2020 semester. Policies that were already in the works, such as a new social media policy, are still moving through the inclusive process, with meetings and document review occurring online.

Full Process

• Decision maker: Board of Trustees, president, or provost
• Review/Input:
  • Board of Trustees (for governance policies)
  • President’s Cabinet
  • General counsel
  • Policy Advisory Council
  • Student Government Assembly
  • Faculty and staff senates
  • University community open comment period
  • Ad hoc work groups based on expertise and operational area
• Documentation: Formal policy statement published online in University Policy Library

Interim Process

• Decision maker: President or provost
• Review/Input: Key constituents at president’s or provost’s discretion (in this case, a cross-functional taskforce, including the provost, general counsel, senior leadership team, and others was formed to address all things COVID-19)
• Documentation: Informal policy statements published online in the employee newsletter and MSU Denver’s COVID-19 Updates and Resources webpage

Staying Flexible

Including some flexibility in the policy process has saved me a great deal of stress during this time, as it allows me to focus on ongoing operations as senior leaders within the organization address current developments.

Many of us are involved to varying degrees with our respective institutional responses to the current coronavirus situation. In thi­­­­­­­­s week’s blog, I’d like to describe my experiences in the past couple of weeks and then open things up to your input.

Like so many others, my work routine changed rather quickly about two weeks ago, as the coronavirus situation began to expand and affect our state and institution. My campus, Georgia Gwinnett College, is located in the Atlanta metro. Our region has seen the highest rate of virus diagnoses in the state, simply due to more population density, about 6 million in Atlanta and suburbs. Decisions to suspend in-person classes, study abroad plans, and certain travel were made quickly by our state university system but each campus is also responding according to local needs and capabilities. As of March 16, only essential staff are on campus and most institutional effort has been focused on moving all classes and needed services online and transitioning students out of residential housing. Our residence halls remained technically open until yesterday, as plans were arranged for some students. I manage the institutional policy review and approval process, but not the policies themselves or compliance, so my role has been fairly minimal in the first two weeks. Buildings are mostly locked (although campus police will let you in if necessary), and the rest of us are working remotely. I’ve used the time to work on a variety of projects, including one for a new VP that was created BC (Before Coronavirus) to help her get up to speed on institutional policies and processes.

Communication is always essential, of course, but has become much more so recently. I have given thought to how (or even if) I should communicate to administrators about policies during this time. Normally, I send a weekly update to senior leadership and others with policy responsibilities, describing policy review activity, tips for good policy practice, and so on. I sent out a basic version in the first week just to maintain some hint of normalcy in a weird week, and last week, I added in a suggestion for using time working remotely to do policy work, along with reminders about tools to facilitate that. There are quite a few tasks that need to be done, such as formatting older policies in our current template, and they can be accomplished remotely, so all policy proponents have at least some policies they could address. I’ve already had an online meeting with one division’s policy team and I hope my nudge will encourage more to tackle policy projects, once the immediate needs associated with pandemic response are settled.

Because I’m a one-person office, my day-to-day work is relatively solitary and I have not found the transition to remote work too difficult, other than the need to address random questions and thoughts from my children, who are also home doing school work online. (My 13-year-old just asked me if I knew there is a penguin species that lives in the desert…science class research, apparently). After the first week of working just on my laptop, I went to my campus office over the weekend to retrieve some hardware, including my 39-inch monitor that helps me compare documents side-by-side. It’s invaluable in the office and even more so at home, even if it makes my dining room table/new office look like the bridge of the Enterprise. I’ve also received some in-the-moment training on using Microsoft Teams, which my colleagues are using for meetings. Georgia is blooming more each day and my family is taking a daily sanity walk, spring weather and pollen count allowing, while we maintain physical distancing, and I’m keeping the same daily routine, if somewhat more casually dressed, which I find helpful.

How has your work been affected as a result of coronavirus response? What role is policy playing in your campus’ response? Has the situation highlighted any strengths and/or weaknesses in your current policies? If you are working from home, what tips or discoveries can you share? How can we support you?

Note: This tutorial is for the Window's Office 365 version of Microsoft Word. If you're using Mac or an older version of Word, you may not have the same options or features. To see which version of Word you're using, click File > Account in the desktop application. 

If you’re like me and have been using Microsoft applications for years, it’s easy to stick to the same shortcuts and habits when it comes to using Word and other Office products. However, with the introduction of Office 365, Microsoft is now able to provide continual updates and improvements to their applications over time, offering new features regularly without the need for software upgrades. As such, you may not be aware and taking advantage of some of the newest features and tools available in Office 365. These features, when utilized, have the ability to improve your writing, increase productivity, enhance collaboration, and simplify accessibility compliance.

One of the best and most useful features new to Office 365 is a built-in writing assistant called Editor. Editor is a robust, real-time writing assistant that goes beyond the standard spellcheck we’re all familiar with in Word. Once enabled and configured, Editor provides enhanced proofing suggestions that identify spelling, grammar, clarity, and stylistic issues as you type, and the Editor pane helps you understand suggestions so you can make choices that improve your writing.

This tool is customizable, allowing the user to configure which issues to flag and which to ignore, from grammar issues (such as passive language and misused words) to style preferences (such as gendered pronouns and slang), and so much more depending on your office’s preferences and needs. I’ve found the punctuation convention option especially useful in flagging those pesky double spaces that sometimes sneak in following a sentence.

How to Configure Editor Settings

The following instructions will allow you to specify what grammar and style issues you would like Editor to flag.

1.       In the File pane Word, click Options > Proofing.

2.       Under When correcting spelling and grammar in Word, select Settings

3.       For Writing Style, select Grammar & Refinements.

4.       Scroll down to see all of the options available, and select or clear the rules you want. The settings apply to all the documents that you edit, not just the current one, and can be modified at any time.

You can view the Editor pane at any time by selecting the Review tab and clicking on Spelling & Grammar (or Check Document, depending on your version of Word), or by hitting the F7 key shortcut. You can also configure Editor settings directly from this pane at any time as you type.

To learn more about Editor, explore some of the articles on Microsoft Office’s Word Help & Training pages.

More Information

This post is part of an ongoing series on web accessibility and Microsoft Word optimization. For further training, see my previous posts (Word Tips one and two, and part one, two, and three of my series on accessibility.) As usual, let me know in the comments below what questions you may have, topics you would like to see addressed in future posts, challenges you face in regards to accessibility and document/template creation, or any other suggestions you have to help me tailor my posts to your unique needs. 

Often organizations want to build a strong policy development process, but struggle on identifying the how. My institution initiated a plan to develop a formal policy program based on our first policy on policies (POP). We went through various program designs, sponsors, and stops and starts. Until a project manager (PM) was assigned, developing clearly defined next steps (who, when, what, and why) was a challenge.  Our PM helped us develop a well-defined process with the following steps.

Project Management Process

Step 1: Identify the goal of the project.At the planning stage (following a presidential charge to develop a POP), our PM worked with the team to answer fundamental project management questions: What are you hoping to achieve? How will we measure that? What does success look like? After numerous planning meetings, we were able to identify our policy goals: 1) establish a university-wide policy review process to ensure strong guidelines to comply with internal processes and external regulations and 2) standardize the format and essential elements of all policies.

Step 2: Map out the scope.Our scope included an approval process to arrive at a new policy, the procedures, the marketing effort, committee structure, policy writers, comment period, and decision makers. Our PM made sure our project scope included the deliverables and the timeline for those deliverables.

Step 3: Develop a full outline. Your institution’s culture dictates this next step. Should the process begin all at once, a measured socialization process; or a slow rollout or some-type of hybrid? For us, the timeline addressed each area identified in our scope: policy (interim vs permanent), the procedures (public or internal), the marketing effort (website design, communication channels, and presentations), committee structure, policy writers, comment period, and decision-makers.

Step 4: Finalize your plan. All steps in the plan must be clearly identified and developed into a defined timeline. Our plan had to be vetted not only among the policy working group and concerned stakeholders, but also the senior sponsors to the program. Failure to keep all members involved in the final plan would inevitably guarantee a slowdown in progress.

Our Lessons Learned

1. Change is inevitable. Do not be afraid to readjust your plan. At our initial request, the PM designed the plan relying upon our request to work with a slow rollout in the hope we could gently socialize the process to all the stakeholders. However, this process created confusion and pushback in an uninformed manner. With the support of our PM, we were able to pivot to a full-roll out and we managed to get the project back on track quickly.
   
   
2. Avoid scope creep. Stick to the goals as set by the project management plan. One thing our PM consistently reminded the group: no scope creep! There is always lots to do. Ideally, the team should document the additional needs and schedule time/people to address independently of the current plan. At times, your project scope may change and/or expand. Revisit your plan from the top and adjust all steps accordingly.
   
   
3. Manage the delays. Delays may not be avoidable, but lapses in communications are avoidable. Our implementation rollout plan included a revamp of the location and look of the university policies, which resulted in a significant loss of time due to changes in team personnel. However, at all times, we kept the stakeholders and participants (e.g., marketing department, IT team) apprised of changes in the timelines.
   
   
4. Practice makes perfect. Recognize the need to spend time expounding the new process with the decision-makers and with those who will be tasked to employ the new policy regularly. Although the new process was reviewed and approved by the President’s Cabinet, we underestimated the need to “walk through” the first few policies. This caused a setback in comprehension and adoption as policy approvals inadvertently drifted back to prior processes.
   
   
5. Conduct a project postmortem. Assess how the policy development went from start to finish, including any bumps in the road you experienced. Did it run on schedule? If not, did you readjust/get back on schedule? What caused the delay? What would you change for the next policy rollout? Were there any major wins/lessons learned that will significantly impact your next policy rollout? You should also compare how your results fared with your initial plan. By taking this time to reflect, you will all but guarantee that your next policy under development doesn’t fall victim to the same mistakes.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

At the end of your career, when you look back on it, what must have been present for you to feel as though you were successful? This is a job interview question I have asked various candidates over the years. I think the answer can be very telling of the person’s values and work ethic.

A common theme among the answers I hear is a feeling that they have made a difference. In my experience working in higher education for a dozen or so years, this theme tends to be common among anyone who works at a college or university—from faculty and administrators to groundskeepers and food service workers. It takes the efforts of everyone working on a campus to help our students succeed. Some jobs may have more direct contact with students, but other jobs, like policy administrators, work behind the scenes to keep the infrastructure in place. In doing so, we contribute to student success as well.

I’ll be honest, when I first applied for a job at Purdue University, I wanted to work here because I saw it as a stable employer with good benefits. I was looking to get away from both a job and an employer that were headed in a direction I did not want to go. The job I took at Purdue was more in line with my career goals, so I took a cut in pay to do work that was better suited to me. Shortly after I started at Purdue, the Great Recession hit, and my theory of employer stability was tested. Nevertheless, the benefits have remained good and I found an added benefit of working somewhere that values many of the same things I value: continuous learning, integrity, and honesty.

I still have a while to go before I get to the end of my career, but if I were asked the question about what will make me feel successful, I think I would say having good relationships with colleagues and coworkers. I cannot do my job without encouraging others to work with me. And I don’t want to be the person that everyone dreads hearing from. So, I have to invest in building relationships that sustain me each time I come knocking with a request to draft, review, or communicate something. When I am met with a smile and leave with a thank you, I know I have done something right.

**This blog represents my personal views rather than the official position of MSU Denver or ACUPA.**

Developing community standards rather than rules

Often when I tell people that I work on policy, they respond with, "So you make the rules?" While this question often amuses me, I’ve come to view policies as much more than rules.

In “Decolonizing Hispanic-Serving Institutions: A Framework for Organizing” (Garcia, 2018), Dr. Garcia argues that HSIs “must recognize their history of colonialism before moving toward an organizational model grounded in decolonization” (p. 132). One way to do so, Garcia claims, is to create community standards within an organization rather than rules.

Garcia describes community standards as “dynamic and fluid” (p. 139). “In a decolonized organization,” Garcia writes, “members develop rules, regulations, and policies as needed to protect…and to progress as a community.”

Bringing Multiple Voices to the Conversation

Garcia argues that community standards are “complimentary to the decentralized governance structure in that standards can and should be created by multiple people within the organization, including students, faculty, and staff” (p. 140).

Creating welcoming and respectful spaces, such as policy advisory councils, open forums, and cross-functional workgroups, that acknowledge and adapt to the diverse backgrounds of students, faculty, and staff leads to better synergy between constituent groups, senior leaders, and organizational areas. Rather than being viewed as rules that unnecessarily restrict behavior, policies are viewed as community standards that uphold the shared values of the organization.

References

Garcia, G.A. (2018). Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(2), 132-147.

As we near the end of 2019, the Blog Committee would like to share some of the articles we have been reading that relate to policy administration in higher education.

Schools Fear Deportation of DACA Recipient Teachers
by Lauren Camera, U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 12, 2019

Defending DACA in Denver and D.C.
by Matt Watson, RED, November 12, 2019

Guidelines to counter foreign interference in HE unveiled
by Brendan O’Malley, University World News, November 14, 2019

Thompson Rivers University violated professor’s academic freedom with suspension, CAUT report says
by Joe Friesen, The Globe and Mail, November 19, 2019

States Move to Add Native American History to Curriculum
by Cinnamon Janzer, U.S. News & World Report, November 29, 2019

Balancing academic freedom and intelligence security
by Alice de Jonge, University World News, November 30, 2019

Many Public Universities Refuse to Reveal Professors’ Conflicts of Interest
by Annie Waldman and David Armstrong, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 6, 2019

Are You Prepared For California’s Sweeping Labor Law Changes?
by Mark Spring, TLNT, December 10, 2019

Is 350 Books Enough?
by Elin Johnson, Inside Higher Ed, December 10, 2019

Note: This post is a beginner-intermediate tutorial and assumes you already know how to save and edit a document in Word for use as a custom template file (.dotx). For a beginner’s guide to saving a document as a template see Microsoft’s “Create a Template” tutorial. Additionally, this post is tailored specifically for PCs with Office 365, though most should be applicable for MAC use, as well as older versions of Word.

One of the challenges of producing accessible policy documents for digital use is ensuring the continual consistency and uniformity of those documents throughout the many stages of policy. In a previous post, I discussed how the tedious and ongoing repair and upkeep of our templates, as they passed through the hands and computers of different policy writers, was costing our office a lot of valuable time. In this post, I’m going to show you some of the ways we’ve been able to harness some of Word’s advanced templating features to mitigate user error, automate institutional and accessibility standards, and save our office a lot time by eliminating the same repetitive fixes.

Create Uniform Styles

Creating styles is the easiest way to save time and energy for both you and your users. Any time text or formatting is modified from the standard paragraph text (even just bolded or resized), it should be assigned to an existing style or a new one created. The biggest mistake Word users make is formatting text outside of a style. This is important for both accessibility and elimination of user error. Every time text is formatted outside of a named style, those alterations are coded into the text, making it more difficult to convert to other formats (PDF, HTML, etc.), while also making it a nightmare for screen readers.

Most Microsoft Word users know that Word comes preloaded with their own styles, and if you’ve been following along with my posts on accessibility, you know that using them is a requirement for the creation of accessible documents. However, most casual users are not aware that these styles can be modified and used to act and look however you want them to. In addition, when you create a template (.dotx or .dotm) from a Word document, if done correctly, those styles will appear within the template for use by anyone with the template file.

Whether you’re modifying a current template file or creating a new one, you can alter the styles to meet your aesthetic needs while adhering to accessibility best practices (just be sure your custom styles meet WCAG’s standards on font, size, contrast, and color).

Updating Styles

If your template is already created, you can use the pre-existing text to quickly update Microsoft’s pre-programmed styles to mimic your template’s design. If you’re creating a new template, simply format the text exactly how you want the headings and other elements in your template to look. Then determine the hierarchy of formatted text in your template, keeping in mind that anything formatted differently than paragraph text should be assigned a style. (Remember to assign headings based on WCAG’s standards, and never, ever, skip levels).

To assign a text’s properties to a style, click on any part of that text and then right-click the applicable style in the styles ribbon. Select “Update Heading to Match Selection” from the pop-up menu (see image below). Doing this tells Words to copy all the properties of the selected text (font name, size, boldness; bolding or italics; paragraph spacing, indenting, alignment; formatting; etc.) to the style. Now, rather than a screen reader reading aloud those properties in lengthy detail, it will simply announce it by its selected header tag, which also notifies the reader of its importance within the document.

Follow this step for all your headings and any other formatted elements, and don’t forget to modify the paragraph style to match your template’s paragraph style if it deviates from Microsoft’s default programming.

Note: In Office 365, only heading 1 and 2 are shown by default; however, when you assign text to heading 2, heading 3 is revealed, and so on as each heading is assigned.

Altering Style Settings

If you follow the instructions above, you should be able to easily make and use styles within your current document. However, if you want your styles to persist and be accessible within the template file itself on any computer by anyone with the template file, you need to take one more step.

With each style you modify, right click on its name in the styles ribbon and select “Modify.”

In this menu, you are able to alter any of the properties of the style, including its name, paragraph options, effects, bordering, etc. But the most important setting for templating is to ensure that both “Add to the Styles gallery” and “New documents based on this template” are checked (as shown below).

Don’t forget to save your document as a template file afterward.

Any time a document is created from that template file, it will contain its assigned and customized styles, eliminating the need for tedious and repetitive formatting, and reducing user error from manual formatting. However, to really restrict users from inadvertently muddying your template, you’re going to want to lock down the styles they’re allowed to use, freeing them from the pesky confusion of choice and giving you supreme template control, which I will discuss in a future post.

More Information

This post is part of an ongoing series on web accessibility and Microsoft Word optimization. For further training, see my previous posts (Word Tips one and two, and part one and part two of my series on accessibility.) 

I hope you are finding these posts informative and applicable with your role in policy administration. As usual, let me know in the comments below what questions you may have, topics you would like to see addressed in future posts, challenges you face in regards to document or template creation, or any other suggestions you have to help me tailor my posts to your unique needs. 

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

As of September 1, it is legal to place bets on sports, including NCAA Division I sports, in Indiana, where I live. Billboards, TV ads, and online ads entice gamblers to join in the fun at a casino or to place a bet on a smartphone app. This flurry of excitement for sports betting comes as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to strike down a federal law from 1992 that banned states from legalizing sports betting. Only four states—Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon—that already had legal betting on their books were exempt from the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

Indiana is not alone. Since the ruling, 15 states have legalized sports betting in some form or another (for a total of 19 states). The Action Network provides a tracker for all 50 states, if you are curious to see where each state stands on the issue.

What does this have to do with higher education policy? Well, Purdue University has NCAA Division I sports teams. And while the NCAA already prohibits student-athletes, athletics department staff, and conference office staff from engaging in sports betting, our board of trustees saw the potential for conflicts of interest if members of our university community who are not covered by the NCAA’s rule decided to use inside information for personal gain or to influence a game. This concern was shared by members of our faculty senate. So, Purdue’s board resolved to prohibit all faculty, staff, students, and independent contractors of the university from placing, accepting, or soliciting sports bets on any Purdue team, student-athlete, coach, statistical occurrence, contest, or event.

My job, in anticipation of the board’s resolution, was to research and draft a policy that could pass as soon as the board took action. In September, my University Policy Committee (UPC) saw a confidential draft of the policy and was asked to comment on it. The committee members weren’t too surprised by the draft, because the day before I sent it out, a press release went out that was picked up by local, state, and, eventually, national news. That draft was also shared with our Executive Policy Review Group (EPRG) in September. As soon as the board passed its resolution on October 10, I updated a few things in the policy, with help from legal counsel, and sent the draft back out to the UPC—this time asking committee members to share with their colleagues. They had only two days to send back comments to me so the EPRG could vote on it electronically and I could make it effective on October 18, the Friday before the next football game. It was a whirlwind month and a half, but it all seems to have worked out, and the focus now is on education.

The most common question we have received is how the policy will be enforced. Are we going to have undercover employees hang out at casinos looking for offenders? Are we going to expel a student for placing a five-dollar bet? The answer is that we will enforce it as we do any other policy that speaks to our values, ethics, and integrity, by weighing the facts and making decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Have you had to address this issue at your institution? If so, what choices did you make about the scope and breadth of the policy? If you’re curious to see what Purdue did, feel free to view the policy online.

What factors determine the right time to retire?  For many, it’s a simple mathematical question: “What day will my finances support retirement?” For others, who, perhaps, define themselves by their jobs, it’s more difficult—giving up your identity can be difficult and traumatic; these people often retire only when they have to, because of pressure from a spouse or a health condition. Some individuals are forced out of their jobs because of a discriminatory attitude about senior employees or the erroneous belief in a reverse correlation between age and productivity. And then there are the others who simply enjoy their work immensely and will never retire, such as both of my octogenarian parents. 

For most, I imagine, it’s a combination of factors. 

I never wanted to work at one job forever. I haven’t defined myself by my profession, nor wanted to have a job that is my life; instead, I always wanted a job that allowed me to have a life. So how did I know that it was time for me to retire from Cornell University? As I said to ACUPA Chair Jen Rogers, it was a spiritual, financial, professional, and cosmic convergence of occurrences.

First to arrive was the unavoidable realization that I am getting older. I don’t have to describe how this happens, but it happens to almost everyone, at one time or another. (For me, it was around my sixtieth birthday—too many candles!) Then, about nine months ago, my office got reorganized; this is a good thing, because Cornell finally has a Compliance Office, within which the University Policy Office will live. But it’s another adjustment for me, and meant my sixth boss in less than six years. Additionally, it looks as though the policy director function will probably change in a way that makes my role as a thought leader somewhat obsolete, putting the University Policy Office more squarely into the category of project management. (My brain keeps replaying that unforgettable scene from The Twilight Zone: “You are obsolete!”) This is, to be sure, a more current approach to centralized policy, and I’m not sure I would have been able to muster the passion for my endeavors that drives my professional success and personal happiness.

Then, on October 13, I received a bulk email from the local real estate board, (of which I am still a member from my days as a real estate broker), announcing the resignation of the current executive director. This is a job I had coveted since I first got my real estate license, many years ago. The board was looking for a replacement. I thought it might be kismet, so I cobbled together a cover letter and a resume, and applied the next day. I didn’t expect anything, but I was called for an interview the next week. I got the job.

Because of life and family events, as well as the extreme political and physical climates, in the past three months my feelings have ranged from fear to exuberance, sadness back to fear, anger to excitement, and everything in between. This figured in considerably to over a week of soul searching, after which I decided to turn the “possibles” into “definites” by accepting the offer last Thursday. 

This chapter of the story has a happy ending, all in all. I think I will miss the policy work here at the university, but there are myriad positives: I will continue my membership in ACUPA in the category Retired from Education; my new office will be just across the street from my current one; I will be going back to the more public life I enjoyed so much as a Realtor and, before that, restaurateur and retailer; and I have a brand new personal and professional challenge that will utilize the skills I have built here at Cornell. This has been a very rewarding stretch of life, and I can only hope that the next one is even half as fulfilling.

Have you thought about retiring? Does it scare you, or feel strange to think about?  If you have thought about it, I hope you are able to come up with a plan that fits your dreams and provides great satisfaction.

**The views expressed in this blog are my personal views and do not represent the official position of Metropolitan State University of Denver or ACUPA.**

Even in the darkest of times we have the right to expect some illumination, and that such illumination may well come less from theories and concepts than from the uncertain, flickering, and often weak light that some men and women, in their lives and their works, will kindle under almost all circumstances and shed over the time span that was given them on earth…

—Hannah Arendt, Men in Dark Times

“Wait till the semester ends isn’t really realistic,” said one MSU Denver faculty member during a recent discussion on amorous relationships between employees and students. MSU Denver’s Policy Advisory Council, a group that provides recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees on university-wide policies, is currently pondering such questions as, “Should a college regulate consensual relationships?” and “Does love belong in the classroom?”

Arguments against allowing relationships include unfair power differentials between employees and students and concerns about actual or perceived bias in grading or other program benefits. Also, what if a relationship begins as consensual and then turns sour? How are other students and faculty impacted by the relationship?

The Policy Advisory Council is looking at how amorous relationship policies fit in with more general policies, including quid pro quo sexual harassment, conflict of interest and employee benefits policies. For instance, MSU Denver recently revised its tuition benefits policy to allow employees’ spouses and dependents to take MSU Denver courses tuition-free. An employee’s son or daughter could potentially take a course from a parent. Is the conflict of interest less if an employee has a personal relationship with a student but is not involved romantically? Trying to untangle the web of affectionate relationships seems nearly impossible when one begins to list common power differentials (tenured versus tenure-track or adjunct faculty, etc.).

Beyond Sex for Grades

Some acknowledgment that love lies at the core of many mentor-protégé relationships would help to ease anxiety over regulating affairs of the heart. Take, for example, the romance of philosopher Hannah Arendt and her (married) professor, Martin Heidegger. Their relationship is said to have been an inspiration for Heidegger’s influential, philosophical work, Being and Time.

In his first letter to Arendt from February 1925, Heidegger wrote:

Everything should be simple and clear and pure between us. Only then will we be worthy of having been allowed to meet. You are my pupil and I your teacher, but that is only the occasion for what has happened to us. I will never be able to call you mine, but from now on you will belong in my life, and it shall grow with you. We never know what we can become for others through our Being.

How humans are shaped by both physical and metaphysical boundaries, including the presence of other individuals, is also a theme in Arendt’s philosophy. Would these contributions to philosophy have been made without the philosophers’ experience of pushing against metaphysical and ethical boundaries? Does a blanket policy prohibiting romantic relationships ignore that love is often a motivating factor for learning and intellectual growth?

I am the policy manager for my campus, and I am organizationally housed within a department called Plans, Policies, and Analysis.  The unit includes the traditional institutional effectiveness functions, including academic and co-curricular assessment, institutional strategic planning, and, of course, policy process management.  My role within my department is to manage the institutional policy review process, but I have no role with managing the policies themselves (other than our own departmental policies).  Despite the clear boundaries around my responsibilities, I have arguably the widest view of policies on our campus—which policies we have and how they relate—since I work with all of them. 

Because of this broad policy view, I was recently asked to represent my department on my college’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Committee.  While I am generally familiar with ERM, I have not been part of any ERM activities before, so my first action, after asking a few questions and receiving the committee charter, was to dive deeper into the role of policy in ERM, so that I can attend my first meeting well prepared.

My role on this committee hasn’t really begun yet, but for now, I believe that it will be to articulate risks, as they arise, that are created by extant policy or the absence of policy.  Because my unit drives institutional strategic planning, my role will also be to identify and articulate risks associated with our strategic plan and its processes.  According to Deloitte, these include risks that inform the strategic plan (such as legislation that could alter our activities), risks to the implementation of the plan itself (such as imminent budget cuts), and risks created by the plan.  An example of the latter could be creating a strategic priority around moving data to the cloud, which would create some risk around security of the data.

One of the things I’m most looking forward to is working with campus leadership in a slightly different capacity.  I currently work with a wide swath of administrators and staff through the policy editing and review process.  They know me as the person who provides training for policy processes and best practices and the editor of individual policy changes.  My role on the ERM committee will be more analytical and broad-based, as we work together to identify risks and prioritize the amount of risk they present.  Another thing I’m looking forward to is the opportunity to “sit at the top of the mountain” and further my understanding of how key institutional processes work together to feed the success of the college.  I’m a bit of an organizational development nerd, so I’m sure I will find it fascinating to learn more about how the strategic plan, institutional policy, and the various parts of ERM work together (or, don’t, eek!). 

What experiences have you had with ERM?  What advice or resources can you share that have been helpful to you in risk management?  In your current role, do you identify policy risks, either inside a risk management structure or more informally?  What do you do to increase the chance that these concerns are responded to?

In my last post, I introduced the topic of web accessibility in relation to how we create, edit, and display policy for digital consumption. Regardless of how your institution chooses to display its policies online—whether by PDF, HTML (web layout), Word document, etc.—the content within needs to be presented in a way that conforms to accessibility standards to ensure that all users have equal access to its information. In this article, I’ll dive a little deeper into the basics of web accessibility by discussing some of the most common mistakes users make when creating web content or documents intended for web display.

The following is a summary of the three most common accessibility mistakes I see in institutional policy documents and web content: styles, links, and tables. For each item, I'll include examples of common mistakes and the rationale behind the corrections, to help you better understand the standard as it pertains to policy administration. However, this list is by no means a comprehensive guide to full accessibility compliance. For the full list of accessibility standards, you should refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

Mistake 1: Incorrect Use of Styles

Using heading and paragraph styles incorrectly (or not at all) is perhaps the most common mistake I see when viewing digital content and documents. In a future post, I plan to delve deeper into how to best utilize styles in your document templates to quickly and effortlessly generate fully accessible documents, but for now, I’ll just cover the basics: If you're not using styles in your documents, you should be; and if you are using styles, make sure you're using them correctly.

Proper utilization of text styles (heading, paragraph, emphasis, etc.) is critical for accessible content. Screen readers have to be given instructions to know which content is most important and how it should be organized. When you use styles, you provide screen readers with this information and help visually impaired users navigate through your content more quickly. Using custom formatting in documents without styles (manually changing color, size, font, etc.) causes screen readers to read out cumbersome formatting text to their users, interrupting the flow of information. Using styles incorrectly (usually due to a preference in design over the correct style) causes confusion when screen readers improperly organize the document accordingly.

To avoid this mistake, use descriptive heading and paragraph styles (e.g., Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3, Paragraph, etc.) to designate content organization and hierarchy. Select an appropriate style based on its descriptive name and the content it is defining rather than on its appearance, and don’t skip levels (e.g., using Heading 1 then Heading 3). Styles can always be edited to suit aesthetic preferences or institutional standards.

Mistake 2: The Ambiguous Link

Another accessibility error I see often is non-descriptive link text, or the absence of link text entirely. Hyperlinks should contain a short description of where they are leading, not just “Click here” or the URL of the webpage.

To avoid this mistake, use descriptive link text to provide added context. See the links in my opening paragraphs above for examples of descriptive and relevant hyperlink text. Link text that describes what you are linking to helps readers scan and anticipate where they will go when clicking a link. Link text like “Click here” provides little context to where the link is actually going.

Mistake 3: The Misappropriated Table

This mistake, I am ashamed to admit, is one that my own institution had been unknowingly and egregiously committing in our policy templates and documents for years: using tables as a way to format and control design elements, rather than as a way to logically organize and present tabular information. Complex or misused tables can be difficult for readers to follow and comprehend, especially for screen reader users who have to remember the headers.

To avoid this mistake, format and use simple tables with column and row headers. Split up nested tables into simple tables, and don’t use tables to control design elements or layout. Check to ensure content can be tabbed through in proper reading order and provide alt text for all tables and images.

Other Considerations

Accessibility standards in web content are fairly new phenomena and are constantly evolving to meet the needs of new technologies and diverse groups and individuals. Many higher education institutions and universities that have been around since far before the advent of the digital world, mine included, have been scrambling to bring decades of content up to current times.

This list contains just a few of the most common accessibility issues to watch out for as you create and edit documents for digital consumption. Have you noticed any of the above mistakes or others in your own institution's policies and documents? What are some of the most common accessibility issues your institution has faced?

For more information about web accessibility, see my previous post on the Policy Matters blog: An Introduction to Web Accessibility. For the most comprehensive and current guide on web accessibility, refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of ACUPA or Purdue University.

Classes for the new academic year started on August 19 at Purdue and, so far, the sidewalks are less dangerous than they were this time last year. That’s because we don’t have 3,000 electric scooters zipping around campus and being discarded like food wrappers outside buildings, at bus stops, and in the middle of public walkways. Last fall, someone on an electric scooter who clearly did not know how to stop it nearly ran me over.

Purdue’s flagship campus is located in West Lafayette, Indiana, which is a city of nearly 30,000 people. The population more than doubles when Purdue’s 43,000 students come to town. So, the university has a definite impact on the city that surrounds it. When a scooter company dropped off 3,000 electric scooters around campus last year for students to rent via an app on their smartphones, the university coordinated with the city to get the chaos that ensued under control. Eventually, the scooters disappeared, and the city now has an ordinance in place that requires scooter companies to obtain permits, limits the number of scooters the company can deploy, mandates parking fees and fines for the company, and requires operators of scooters to follow the same rules as bicycle operators.

So far, two companies have obtained permits through the city. The fact that the companies can deploy only 150 scooters each has notably reduced their presence around campus. Now, Purdue just needs to focus on outlining complementary rules for use of the scooters on its campus, which makes my job much easier.

As we contemplate those rules, we are also considering language for managing another new technology about to invade our campus: food delivery robots. These are small, autonomous devices that look like coolers on wheels used by restaurants to deliver food. Some of you may have seen them on your own campuses. So far, only one or two robots have been spotted, and we are told they are in the mapping phase, meaning that they are mapping out the campus so that once they are in use, the robots will know how to navigate to delivery addresses.As you can imagine, having small, unmarked vehicles rolling around campus with locked containers carrying who knows what presents a myriad of safety concerns.

Curious to read more about the scooters and robots? Here are a couple links to articles in our local newspaper:

• Scooter companies promise to do better, ready to deploy again in Lafayette, near Purdue
• Little white robot seen driving Purdue sidewalks, identified as Starship Technologies

If any of you have encountered similar issues, I’d love to hear what you did to address them. Leave a comment below, and if you have a policy you are willing to share, include a link.

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?

The views expressed in this article are my personal views and do not represent the official position of MSU Denver or ACUPA.

Metropolitan State University of Denver recently restructured its Policy Advisory Council to be more inclusive of various perspectives throughout the university. The council, a group that I helped to establish in 2016 and continue to facilitate, provides recommendations to MSU Denver leadership on university-wide policies and policy impacts prior to enactment or revision. In 2018, as part of MSU Denver’s inclusive-leadership movement, MSU Denver President Janine Davidson, Ph.D., opened the council membership to any interested student or employee at the university. A year later, the council has about 65 total members, comprised of students, faculty, and staff, with 20 to 25 of those members attending any given monthly meeting.

While having a large number of individuals on the council can make meeting and coming to consensus more difficult, the benefit of having diverse perspectives, particularly when it comes to implementation, training and communication, outweighs the challenge of including many voices in the process.

Conflict Management, Not Resolution

Involving multiple perspectives in the policy process will eventually lead to conflict. “Conflict is growth waiting to happen,” said MSU Denver Human Services Professor Tony Ledesma, during a peace-studies learning community. Instead of viewing this conflict as a problem to be resolved, I’ve learned to view the friction in the policy process as a force for positive change. Often, when there’s friction, there’s passion. The most outspoken faculty, staff, and students sometimes get reputations for being difficult or obstructive. Rather than viewing dissident community members as a roadblock, policy managers can channel negative energy and harness “difficult” individuals’ passion by including the most outspoken opponents in policy planning and development.

Focus on Students

When President Davidson began her tenure at MSU Denver, she said her priorities were, “Students, students, students.” In higher education, prioritizing students seems obvious. However, immediately following Dr. Davidson’s declaration, MSU Denver employees began to ask, “What about me?” It’s all too easy for administrators and faculty (who are pressured from many angles and also enjoy intellectual interests of their own) to forget that educating students and preparing them to succeed throughout their education and career is the main focus of their work. This case is especially true when the council is talking about policies on employee leave or financial conflicts of interest, which may seem unrelated to students. Yet, the wellbeing and satisfaction of employees often has a trickle-down effect on the satisfaction, retention and graduation of students. When conflicts arise during the policy process, reminding everyone of the organization’s emphasis on “students, students, students,” helps to unite disparate viewpoints by focusing individuals on a common goal.

Looking to the Future

While managing such a large council occasionally leaves me in introvert overload, the success of the inclusive process is worth the effort. In the past year, for example, the council conducted a comprehensive review of the Board of Trustees’ policy manual, and it plans to tackle the staff employment handbook next.

Like most readers of this blog, I regularly provide feedback on policy drafts that are being created on my campus in the required official template.  We also have a style guide that describes how to handle specific situations when writing a policy, such as how to list a reference to another policy manual.  My office has only been managing the policy process on campus for a couple of years, so I can’t say I’ve seen it all, but my formatting feedback usually ends up being, nonetheless, fairly routine: Don’t capitalize this term, put that in bold, etc.  Even so, one policy writer recently asked a question that we found a bit tricky to respond to. 

Like many policy templates, ours allows for a definitions section and, in that section, the writer wanted to use direct quotes taken from the professional publications in her specialty area.  The definitions were useful and it would have been difficult to paraphrase them. Even if they were reworded, the credit for the ideas still belonged with the organization that developed them.  The writer felt strongly about citing her sources, to her credit, and, as we have academic honesty and research ethics policies that we hold our students and faculty to, we believed our policies should conform to a similar standard.

No one disagreed with this in principle, but making it work within our template was not as simple as it might seem.  Our template contains a “related regulations, statutes, policies, and procedures” section where writers can provide links to anything they’ve referred to in the policy (example is below).

Related Regulations, Statutes, Policies, and Procedures

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)  
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)
Georgia Mandatory Reporting Law O.C.G.A. §19-7-5

This section didn’t seem like a good fit for this particular use mainly because the works being quoted were not regulations, statutes, policies, or procedures.  We also discussed whether in-text citations, such as those described in a standard academic format like APA or Chicago style, were appropriate but that just didn’t feel right either. An additional complication is that the tool we use to publish our policies won’t accommodate footnotes or endnotes, so any citation style that used them was impossible. Readers of policy interact with those documents differently than do readers of academic work and we wanted to keep things as clear as possible. 

The final result was that we used quotation marks in the definition and created a new section at the end, in place of the “related regulations…” section.  An example is below:

Open access: Literature that is “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.”

Related References

Source of definition of open access

This may not be our final solution, but the process of developing it caused some robust discussion about how readers interact with scholarly versus administrative documents, as well as how to give credit in a way that doesn’t confuse the reader and conforms to academic honesty principles, if not the exact details of citation structures

Do you allow policy writers on your campus to directly quote sources?  If so, how do you handle it in your policies? 

Think about your institution's policies and how they are published digitally: Can the text be highlighted word for word? Do they include hot links with meaningful text? Do your logos and images include alt text? Were they formatted and designed using styles? If not, your policies may be inaccessible to many of the students, staff, faculty, and visitors to your institution's website.

This post will cover the basics of web accessibility as it pertains to our roles as policy administrators. My next post will dive deeper into accessibility and how you can utilize built-in Microsoft Word tools to generate, efficiently and quickly, documents that translate into fully accessible web and digital content.

Why We Should Care about Accessibility

Web accessibility is one of the most critical issues facing higher education today. New web technologies have been a boon for distance and online education, yet 11% of undergraduates have a disability that impairs access to websites and other online and digital content. Many of us who live without such impairments rarely consider if the documents and digital content we create can be read using a screen reader for someone with a visual disability or navigated with voice software for those unable to use a mouse and keyboard. This is why the World Wide Web Consortium, better known as W3C, created the Web Accessibility Initiative. Under this initiative are standards to make sure the internet can easily be used by as many people as possible. These standards are referred to as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and have become the universally accepted resource for maintaining optimal web accessibility.

While WCAG guidelines and web accessibility may seem daunting, it costs significantly less time and resources to make a site accessible than it does to procure the lawyer to protect you in an accessibility claim. In recent years, thousands of complaints have been filed and fines levied against institutions of higher education for failing to provide equal access to digital resources and education.

However, the issue of accessibility extends beyond legal obligations. While laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act exist to protect individuals with disabilities and ensure equal access to the same resources as everyone else, ensuring that all users have access to the policies of your institution is critical for both themselves and the community, and well—it’s the right thing to do. We, as the creators and curators of the laws and standards that govern our institutions, have a special responsibility to affirm our commitment to serving the needs of every member of our communities. If we expect every individual to abide by the policies and guidelines we establish, we must ensure every individual is able to find, access, and understand the documents and digital content our offices produce and publish.

The Basics of Web Accessibility

The WCAG 2.0 consists of 12 guidelines with four arching principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust (POUR). These principles and guidelines relate to one simple question: can the users with varying degree of ability ingest the content on your site? Remembering the principles of POUR when creating documents can help your policies to be accessibility-ready and avoid having to make time-consuming corrections in the future. These principles are explained in detail below:

Perceivable

The content needs to be presented in different ways, including assistive technologies, without losing its meaning. The easiest way to do so is by providing alt-text for non-text content. The content should be easier to see and hear.

Operable

This principle ensures that the content is easy to operate upon. Web accessibility issues are not synonymous with visibility issues, as is the popular myth. They are as much a problem for people with hearing disability as for a person with a neurological or cognitive disorder. The content on the website needs to be accessible with a keyboard for people with limited motor functions, people with color blindness, and avoiding the use of content and types that cause seizure.

Understandable

Is the text readable for people with difference in visual ability? This principle ensures that the content appears and operates in a predictable way. This specifically focuses on the issues related to color contrast.

Robust

Any content—written or multimedia—should be future proof. Efforts should be made to maximize compatibility with current and future user tools. Before the dawn of the 21st century, screen readers were not as popular as they are 18 years later. A decade back even mobile phones were not as ubiquitous.

Moving Forward

Now that we understand the guiding principles, we are in a better position to deliver a better user experience to all. One thing worth highlighting: accessibility issues are easier to address before they manifest on your policies and documents, not after. My next post will cover simple steps you can take while writing policies and creating other documents and templates to ensure your documents translate to accessibility-compliant digital and web content from the start.

Now, I would like to hear from you. Is your institution currently facing any issues with accessibility? Do your digital policy documents already apply accessibility standards? And does your institution already have a policy regarding accessibility?

To satisfy your desire for a blog post describing some of the features of our website, my next few posts will address a bit of what is offered at acupa.org.

Blogs and forums have the same purpose, to promote communication between members and share information. However, the order and structure of communication is different between the two. They also differ in how you are notified that someone has posted to a forum or blog.

Forums

Forums are threaded ongoing discussions. Any member in good standing can begin a new topic in a forum, or post a comment in any forum discussion. By default, the latest post displays at the top of the list within a forum. Replies within a forum topic are sorted chronologically, so the most recent reply always appears at the bottom. Forums allow for internal quoting and the member’s profile photo is displayed in their forum posts.

The best way to stay on top of discussions in the forums is to subscribe to those that interest you. You can subscribe to get instant updates in your email anytime a forum has a new post. Or, you can subscribe to the digest, which will email you no more than once per day when a forum has a new post. To learn how to set up your forum subscriptions, hover over the “Forums” option in the top navigation and click on “Forums: How-to” from the drop-down menu.

Blogs

Blogs are always organized so that the latest post is at the top of the page, regardless of the addition of comments. Blogs do not pull member profile pictures, but do link to the posting member’s profile. The site-wide blog, to which all members are subscribed, is called Policy Matters. You receive an email notice whenever a new blog is posted. If you would also like an email notice about any comments made on the post, follow these steps from the Policy Matters screen: 1) Click on “Manage Subscriptions,” 2) Click on the speech bubble icon so that it turns green.

Currently, only members of the Blog Committee can post to Policy Matters, but if you would like to write a blog post, the committee would be happy to publish it for you on the Policy Matters blog. If you are interested, please contact Jessica Teets at teets@purdue.edu.