1. Robyn Pennington, Chief of Staff, Business and Finance Michael P. Redmond, Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor, Headquarters Budget, Security, and Strategic Initiatives Chancellor’s Office

2. Background Project was initiated in late 2013 Review and refresh the framework governing the lifecycle of policies and directives issued by the CO Executive Orders, Coded Memorandums, Technical Letters, the Integrated CSU Administrative Manual (ICSUAM) policies and other written directives Goal: align, standardize, simplify and make accessible policies and directives that are issued from the CO Still in discovery and framework development stage

3. Cohasset Associates The CO engaged Cohasset Associates to assist in outreach to CSU community and framework development Cohasset specialized in records management – in business over 40 years

4. What are Written Directives? Written directives must align with CSU’s mission and vision as well as laws and regulations Written directives reflect the position of the CSU Translate CSU value statements into operation They are proposed to primarily consist of Executive Orders, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines

5. Review Process and Discoveries Extensive interviews/meetings were conducted with stakeholders of the CSU Data collected thus far from written directive developers and users indicates need and appetite for change Primary pain points: There are too many, and too many different types, of written directives The conventions (the what, why, when and how) that guide the issuance of written directives are not consistent Hard to discern what is really required Written directive readability is hampered by style and format variations Search functionality hinders access Superseding vs updating – hard to find all the necessary pieces

6. Review Process and Discoveries Integrated CSU Administrative Manual (ICSUAM) framework was ‘voted’ by most interviewed stakeholders as the ideal and preferred electronic venue to house the refreshed framework and the directives The current framework, its mechanics and processes will likely undergo a complete re-design

7. Principles The following principles should be the foundation of the written directives governance framework: Simplification/Alignment: limit the types and number of directives to the minimum necessary to support sound business judgment and compliance with laws and regulation Standardization: provide a consistent process and format for written directives from development and implementation through evaluation and retirement Accessibility: afford the CSU user community a straightforward means to search and access Transparency: clarify accountabilities and responsibilities Quality Control: review and assess; support continuous improvement

8. Policy Office? Recommendation for Policy Office Dedicated to and responsible for the oversight and implementation of the written directives governance framework: Refine framework Review and recommend enhancements and updates Provide oversight, direction and input regarding all written directives Monitor lifecycle phases Oversee retrofit of existing directives

9. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Suggestion to discontinue Technical Letters, Coded Memoranda CSU Written Directives If the direction they provide persists, documents would be re-mapped The four types of written directives described below would comprise the CSU’s written directives hierarchy: Executive Order Policy Procedure Guideline

10. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Executive Order Of the four types of CSU written directives, an Executive Order enjoys narrow and preferential use Used sparingly, an executive order would be issued in response to Board resolution, high level critical requirements or to delegate authority to high-level staff (presidents)

11. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Policy A policy stipulates a system-wide, non-discretionary course or method of action A policy is shaped by and derived from legislation or regulation, standard or requirement A policy will be written to be as short and concise as possible, generally no longer than three pages

12. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Procedure A procedure is the roadmap used to make a policy actionable In contrast to a policy, a procedure outlines a particular way of accomplishing something; an established way of doing things; a series of steps that, when followed in a definite, regular order, ensure consistent results A procedure will be longer than a policy, but generally no longer than seven pages

13. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Guideline A guideline provides internal work instructions that recommend practices or processes Guidelines recommend an action based upon sound business judgment Guidelines do not limit or substitute campus leadership from exercising sound judgment Guidelines are intended only to be advisory and do not establish CSU Policy or create mandates requiring campus compliance

14. Document Hierarchy – Suggested Approach Revision Control Revisions should not necessitate a new and re-named written directive Original specifications are maintained, eliminating the need to search for and review superseded versions

15. Next Steps Leadership review and approval Campus input Policy office and implementation considerations Definition of a metadata scheme and taxonomy to: Manage the relationships between directives Provide simple navigation between old and new directives Correlate related directives Retrofit existing directives into new framework

16. Stakeholder Feedback / Considerations Distribution of policies Identification of target audience, ability to opt in/out of communications regarding new/updated policies Repository in a location that auxiliary personnel can access it too Consideration at some level of the impact at the campus level (financial/human = cost of compliance) by policy creators Consideration of audit finding that may or may not necessitate policy Mitigation of risk Others???????