Engaging Faculty in Policy Development

1. www.acupa.org Engaging Faculty in Policy Development Michele Gross, Director University of Minnesota Policy Program May 6, 2012

2. Crookston Faculty: 49 Undergraduate Students: 1,600 Graduate Students: 0 Morris Faculty: 96 Undergraduate Students: 1,822 Graduate Students: 0 Faculty: 589 Undergraduate Students: 9,782 Graduate Students: 765 The University of Minnesota 2 Duluth 3 Faculty: 3,423 Undergraduate Students: 30,610 Graduate Students: 13,562 4 Twin Cities 1 Rochester Faculty: 11 Undergraduate Students: 257 Graduate Students: (see Twin Cities) 5

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

5. Ownership: Admin Policies “ • Policy owner definition • Policy owners must consult with representatives from target audiences during the development phase of both new and significantly revised 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.

6. Education Policies: Our Case Study

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 Then 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

10. The Process: Then and Now Then 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

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 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?

18. Reaching Out to Faculty

19. Effective Communication • 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 “ “ “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 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. 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

27. Happy Endings and Horror Stories

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?

29. www.acupa.org University of Minnesota Policy Program http://policy.umn.edu policy@umn.edu Michele Gross, Director 612-624-8081 m-gros@umn.edu