Post on 14-Dec-2015
Engaging Faculty in Policy DevelopmentMichele Gross, Director
University of Minnesota Policy ProgramMay 6, 2012
www.acupa.orgACUPA
The Association of College and University Policy Administrators
Twin Cities 1
Faculty: 3,423Undergraduate Students: 30,610Graduate Students: 13,562
Crookston
Faculty: 49Undergraduate Students: 1,600Graduate Students: 0 Faculty: 589
Undergraduate Students: 9,782Graduate Students: 765
Morris
Faculty: 96Undergraduate Students: 1,822Graduate Students: 0
RochesterFaculty: 11Undergraduate Students: 257Graduate Students: (see Twin Cities)
2
3
4
5
Duluth
The University of Minnesota
3
Faculty Governance: U of MUniversity-wide governance group:
University SenateTwin Cities/Morris/Rochester: Faculty
Senate◦ Three executive committees◦ 26 other committees (e.g., Faculty Affairs,
Educational Policy, Finance and Planning)Faculty on two campuses (Duluth and
Crookston) are represented by the UEA (University Education Association)
4
Our Talented FacultyVery focused on their research, scholarship or teachingNot a fan of constraints, like a lot of
flexibilityExpect staff to handle the burden of
processingSome rely on faculty governance to
watch out for collective faculty interestsFree to act/react as individuals to
proposed changes
Policy owner definition
Policy owners must consult with representatives from target audiences during the development phase of both new and significantly revised policies.
5
Ownership: Admin Policies
A person responsible for the operational administration of policies and their related procedures, processes, instructions, and forms. Depending on the scope of the subject matter, a policy may have more than one policy owner.
Education Policies: Our Case Study
6
7
The Starting PointEnhanced our library, process, organizational
alignment, and tools in 2007Major effort to convert all administrative
policiesLaunched a comprehensive review of policiesCautioned about “Senate” policies (primarily
education) – was deemed out of scopeSelect engagement with faculty on policies Minimal use of the library/feedback
mechanisms
8
The Turning PointThe Policy Advisory Committee includes
the coordinator of the University Senate.The Senate Committee on Educational
Policy (SCEP) acknowledged that there was significant opportunity to improve the current policies.
A subcommittee was launched with a original goal of reformatting/tweaking policies.
Once started, the need for major overhaul was recognized.
9
The Policies: Then and Now
“Senate” policies were on the Senate website
Policies were often outdated and content was frequently a mixture of subjects
Duplicate or conflicting content in multiple policies
No standard format or writing style
Few faculty knew where the policies existed
Implementation was inconsistent
Housed in the Library Policies are current Similar content is
consolidated – mostly The standard template is
used The writing style
matches other admin policies
More regular feedback from students and faculty
Consistent process for review, approval, and implementation
Then Now
The Process: Then and Now Policy issues were
raised, discussed, and handled within one or more of the faculty governance groups
Uneven involvement with administrative policy owners
No alignment with the University-wide policy development and maintenance process
No coordination with the University Policy Office
Policy issues still handled within one or more of the faculty governance groups
Regular involvement with administrative policy owners
Follow the University-wide policy development and maintenance process incorporating their governance structure
Regular coordination with the University Policy Office
Then Now
11
Process with Faculty Touch Points
Faculty Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
12
The Matrix
13
Expanded Faculty Consultation
Faculty governance requested consultation on other administrative policies
Subcommittees of the Senate reviewed the list of policies
Identified areas in which they had greater interest
Created a “matrix” for preferred consultation
14
Touch PointsPolicy owners are guided towards
consultation with faculty◦ Matrix◦ The Senate representative◦ The Director of the Policy Program
Consultation with the Senate is noted on each applicable policy
15
Making A DifferencePolicy dialogues are more regular with
the various Senate committees.The number of questions via our policy
library mechanisms have increased.Faculty now regularly contribute to the
final policy by participating in the 30-day open review period.
16
The CostThe consultation request went far
beyond what was originally planned (“should only be a handful”)
Adds time for the policy ownerConsultation often requires multiple
committeesOur definition of minor changes didn’t
necessarily match theirsThe Senate feedback didn’t necessary
mirror their constituents
17
Things to ConsiderAt what points do you engage your
faculty?What type of involvement do they
have?◦ Identify needs or changes◦ Review draft versions◦ Respond to public versions◦ React after policy is in place
Is your current process working…from your perspective and theirs?
Reaching Out to Faculty
18
Necessary to garner support or at least understanding of the policy and associated purpose/reason
The communication needs to address specially, those items that directly impact them
19
Effective Communication
“No single communication method will reach
all faculty from my experience. Regular
reminders will enhance compliance. The
changes or parameters need to remain
visible.”
20
Standard CommunicationsPromoting new or revised policies
◦ Discussion notes in the faculty governance minutes
◦ Broadcast announcement in weekly e-newsletter (The Brief)
◦ Quarterly Policy Post distribution – 1000 recipients, including some faculty
◦ Article on front page of the Policy Library
21
Targeted CommunicationsConsider direct mailings to the target
audienceUse key groups to help publicize the
changes◦ Notes from faculty governance committee
meetingsTake advantage of existing
communication mechanisms (newsletters, forums)
Enlist the help of support staff***For critical policies, may want to
partner with deans or department heads
22
Communication Efforts: International Travel Reporting
Broadcast announcements: U-Wide e-newsletter
Articles: Research Review and the Policy PostDiscussions/announcement: Executive
Oversight Compliance Committee, the President’s cabinet
Targeted email: deans, directors, and department heads
Announced proposed change at the Grants Management Administrators Network
Policy owner did not contact faculty/staff that traveled internationally in the past year
23
TipsDetermine the areas in which you have
the resources/interest to work more closely with faculty
Partner with the key contact(s) in the Senate Office or Academic Affairs Office
Meet with faculty governance leadersEnhance communication effortsCheck back regularly to see if it’s
working and to modify when/where necessary
24
New Features
25
Two New FeaturesDeveloped a version of the policy
library that is smart-phone readyCreated a customized policy page that
allows for an end user to identify the type of individual they are (student, faculty, etc.) and one or more key responsibilities (research, teaching)◦ The return is a policy list that is targeted to
their responses
26
Who Plays What RoleFor any audience, a policy
administrator’s role is to provide the path and door to current policies◦ Location, location, location◦ Fix any barriers to quick access◦ Enforce consistency in policy development
and communicationEnforcement of the policies typically
rests with the policy owners and the individual’s management
Happy Endings and Horror Stories
27
28
Your TalesWhat have you experienced and how
did you survive?What did your successes look like?What additional suggestions might you
have for your colleagues?
University of Minnesota Policy Program
http://policy.umn.edupolicy@umn.edu
Michele Gross, Director612-624-8081
m-gros@umn.edu
29
ACUPA
The Association of College and University Policy Administrators
www.acupa.org