Engaging Faculty in Policy Development Michele Gross, Director University of Minnesota Policy Program May 6, ACUPA The Association of College and University Policy Administrators

Twin Cities 11 Faculty: 3,423 Undergraduate Students: 30,610 Graduate Students: 13,562 Crookston Faculty: 49 Undergraduate Students: 1,600 Graduate Students: 0 Faculty: 589 Undergraduate Students: 9,782 Graduate Students: 765 Morris Faculty: 96 Undergraduate Students: 1,822 Graduate Students: 0 Rochester Faculty: 11 Undergraduate Students: 257 Graduate Students: (see Twin Cities) Duluth The University of Minnesota

3 Faculty Governance: U of M University-wide governance group: University Senate Twin 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 Faculty Very focused on their research, scholarship or teaching Not a fan of constraints, like a lot of flexibility Expect staff to handle the burden of processing Some rely on faculty governance to watch out for collective faculty interests Free 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 Point Enhanced our library, process, organizational alignment, and tools in 2007 Major effort to convert all administrative policies Launched a comprehensive review of policies Cautioned about “Senate” policies (primarily education) – was deemed out of scope Select engagement with faculty on policies Minimal use of the library/feedback mechanisms

8 The Turning Point The 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

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 Points Policy 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 Difference Policy 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 Cost The consultation request went far beyond what was originally planned (“should only be a handful”) Adds time for the policy owner Consultation often requires multiple committees Our definition of minor changes didn’t necessarily match theirs The Senate feedback didn’t necessary mirror their constituents

17 Things to Consider At 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 Communications Promoting 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 Communications Consider direct mailings to the target audience Use key groups to help publicize the changes ◦ Notes from faculty governance committee meetings Take 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 Post Discussions/announcement: Executive Oversight Compliance Committee, the President’s cabinet Targeted 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 Tips Determine 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 leaders Enhance communication efforts Check back regularly to see if it’s working and to modify when/where necessary

24 New Features

25 Two New Features Developed a version of the policy library that is smart-phone ready Created 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 Role For 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 communication Enforcement of the policies typically rests with the policy owners and the individual’s management

Happy Endings and Horror Stories 27

28 Your Tales What 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 Michele Gross, Director ACUPA The Association of College and University Policy Administrators