ACUPA 1998 Annual Meeting
September 25, 1998 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Meeting Minutes
Meeting convened, 9 AM, 25 September, 1998
Present were:
Joshua Adams, Cornell University
Joanne Costello, MIT
Nancy Flowers, Yale University
T. Michael Ford, University of Indiana
Marilyn Gondek, Yale University
Beverlee Hughes, Cornell University
Nancy Kelly, MIT
Alysia Maffucci, Yale University
Rodney Peterson, University of Maryland at College Park
Helen Samuels, MIT
Pat Spellacy, University of Minnesota
Susan Webb, Yale University
Helen reviewed the agenda with group. We will discuss:
Policy process - what does it mean?
Location
Authority
Logistics
The session began with a general discussion of policy process, where it lives, and how we have each modeled it at our institutions:
Rodney- Asked that we discuss a centralized vs. decentralized model.
He talked about his perceived advantage at U. Maryland of allowing different units to create differing policies regarding one issue, because separate units in a large institution might have different styles and histories.
Helen- The clear end-goal of policies is to support university missions. This supports a centralized model.
Alyssa- asked why a university would have different policies on one issue. Joshua asked for an example.
Beverlee spoke about the process at Cornell. She explained that where there are significantly different policies on one issue, the university policy can serve as a "minimum standard;" where the differences are minor, or the procedures different in different units, the policy process has the advantage of being the vehicle for behavioral changes that will bring the university into compliance with regulations and help support the university missions in a consistent manner.
T. Michael- Some of the advantages on his campus of having a decentralized process would be that different campuses have different web formats, and issuance of separate policies gives departments more power than if the process were centralized.
Susan- Wants clarification on the difference between policy and procedure. Helen mentioned Cornell's "Policy on the Formulation and Issuance of University Policies" as a good model of what constitutes a policy. Group looked at that policy.
Pat- Stated that in U Minnesota Minneapolis there are great advantages to having a centralized policy.
Marilyn- Feels a centralized model adds a system of structure that allows process owners to develop and maintain policy.
Pat- At U Minn, the university owns the process, and the unit owns the policy.
Joshua- At Cornell, there may be multiple responsible offices for a policy, and therefore policy ownership is not clear. Cornell uses the central office for all updates, etc.
Pat - At U Minn, where multiple individuals own policies, they think that they are "part of the process," and this works well.
Helen- believes ownership outside the central office introduces another challenge regarding the person who thinks he/she owns the policy, versus any individual's view of the institution.
The conversation then focused on how we communicate policy and procedures:
Alyssia- She finds that people are resistant to a central process to create policies, but notices a subtle shift when individuals realize exactly what advantages there are to a centralized process. Much of this shift is effected through the right approach by the person portraying the policy process.
Helen--agrees with this assessment
Process modeling has been very helpful to Marilyn.
Beverlee pointed out that when the community recognizes the "Policy Template," each knows that this is a real university policy, and that he/she must take note. Compliance follows the initial communication from the Responsible Executive Officer. At Cornell, we find ourselves frequently pointing out, during the process, that certain topics are "training issues," and don't belong in the policy.
Rodney spoke briefly abut the irony of "deliberate vagueness" in policies. Beverlee and Joshua concurred.
What drives policy?
Some ideas:
regulations and laws
90% technology
risk management
need for consistency
Susan-Policies come not only from regulations, but also frm litigation.
Members pointed out some examples:
U Maryland: Sexual assault policy was attempted many times, but only because it was required by law.
At Cornell, alcohol policy was regulation-driven.
Copyright policies are often litigation-driven.
A general discussion ensued about building policy:
It was agreed that a framework must be built first.
Helen-has heard from faculty: "Give me a statement of principles, and I'll d the rest." Everyone agreed that academics have this attitude.
Beverlee pointed out that at Cornell our policies are really "administrative policy and procedures documents," and that faculty doesn't have much dealing with them. Mostly the administrators and managers in their departments are the ones for whom these policies are written.
Rodney-From Educom: "Start discussion about principles, and write policy from there."
Joshua-pionts out that whether this works depends on the subject.
Alyssia began a general discussion of enforcement
Helen-wanted to know how to tell the difference between the difference between policy, education, and enforcement issues, and whether they get included in a policy. She then began a general discussion about "conduct and consequences" surrounding university and college policies.
Some specific policies were discussed:
Anecdotal incidents were related by members about indicia, seal, logo and mascot policies
Beverlee-Cornell's Campus Code of Conduct was driven by the riots in 1969. It was really the first policy that was directed to the entire campus.
Helen-describes MIT's "Identity Project" regarding the Institute's seal.
MG-Related that Yale just appointed a "university printer" to achieve the same goal (for both print and web work).
Rodney-told the grup that UCLA makes $20 billion on its trademarked log. Eyebrows rose in disbelief.
Rodney asked that we discuss briefly how the institution's governance structure fits into the policy-making process:
Beverlee spooke about the University, Faculty, and Student Assemblies at Cornell.
Rodney spoke about Maryland's Student Code of Conduct-it was actually developed by the Student Assembly.
Helen asked abut the driving forces behind Student Information Policies:
Members agreed that it was technology and law. All encountered faculty resistance to a standardized policy.
A general discussion ensued about types of data held in databases.
The morning session of the meeting ended.
Afternoon Discussion
There was a brief discussion following lunch about whether or not it was necessary to have "information technology" policies or whether policies should center around whatever use/issue is of concern since "technology" is becoming a part of almost everything that we do. In Cornell's case, the reason they organize their policies to include information technology policies, as well as administrative policies, financial policies, and human resources policies, etc. is because the vice presidents are organized and that way and there are policies for each vp area. An area like "student information policies" may cut across several organizational areas of the institution, but is more than merely an information technology policy.
Question: Does technology drive policy or policy drive the technology?
For example, data access is an issue that is considered the provost's
responsibility (where?) and there is a standing committee. The policy is brief with several appendices. Duke wrote practically the same policy except they let users decide. The initiative there is being run out of institutional planning. IT was approached but only to see how/if to implement and what it would cost. Accordingly to Beverlee, Cornell feels that the technology cannot drive policy.
We turned to our terms and attempted to attach some meaning or
organization to them. We ultimately landed on a framework that placed them on a continuum according to when they are most likely to occur.
PRINCIPLES are the values, ethics, statements (of values or ethics) that may be the first step towards generating a new policy. It can articulate the background or reasons for a new policy, establish a framework, provide a context, set the scope or intent, help an organization work through the cultural changes, or set the tone for agreement on later, more difficult items. Cornell's requirement of an "impact statement" for new policies serves a similar purpose.
PRACTICES are unwritten and reflect "what exists" (i.e., precedent);
practices can be background information that is used to determine what
policies are needed or what written statements should reflect.
INSTITUTIONAL POLICY articulates minimum standards and is usually written. It is typically general rather than specific, can either encourage ("should") or mandate ("must") certain actions. Codes or rules are usually the same but tend to focus on behavioral issues such as codes of conduct or academic misconduct codes.
PROCEDURES help us implement policy. Regulations serve a similar purpose for codes. Can be determined along with formal policy or left to others to determine.
EDUCATION is how we inform people about our principles, policies, and
procedures. In most cases, education is more effective in changing
behavior or dictating a particular course of action than the mere fact that a written policy exists.
Question: What are examples of items that are similar but not policies?
Guidelines (e.g., fair use of copyrighted materials) may have the same
force or effect, but do not typically result from the formal process
required of official policies.
Statements (e.g., statements on consentual relationships between faculty and students) tend to admonish or encourage to do or not do certain things; however, they do not usually carry consequences or have prescribed procedures.
Discussion about forms. Cornell plans to have forms attached to policies as a matter of customer service. Some will be HTML while others are in PDF or WORD format. Yale plans to implement an oracle solution. Forms will have a Web front-end.
Question: How and when do policy issues get inserted into any planning process? For example, how do we educate administrators that there are policy implications of building new student systems? This is why a policy formulation office would be a good resource; you need to create the person to implement policy. When the information system at MIT was being restructured, the client came to IT with an idea and there is a process for specing out the project plan: Who is the audience? What will it cost? WHAT ARE THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS? Who should be involved in the planning? Information Systems should be a part of the discovery process.
What do we do next?
Discussion of what exists:
There is an existing LISTSERV with approprimately 40 names, but it is not presently very active.
There is a policy group at CAUSE, too. There is a narrow focus on
information technology policy, mostly acceptable use issues.
Discussion of our goals or purpose:
Share information on the policy process - general and specific issues.
Learn about different models for policy making on campuses
Support each other
Legitimize what we do
Hold meetings - once or twice a year
Develop a WebBoard - instead of a LISTSERV
Review literature to help us & make it available to others
Develop a Web site
Discussion of other organizations who would be interested in our work.
NACUBO - National Assocation of College and University Business Officers
NACUA - National Association of College and University Attorneys
(Comment: Our attorneys come back from the Stetson Law Conference and ask, "Why don't our institutions have policies?")
Educause
ACUA - Association of College and University Administrators
CUPA - College and University Personnel Association
CSG - Common Solutions Group
Questions To Be Followed-Up On:
What is IVY-Plus? (Helen)
What is CSG? (Rodney)
Discussion of membership:
-size of membership
-size of meetings
Discussion of others to invite:
-Joan Pitts
-Stanford
-Penn State
-Arkansas
-Dartmouth
Discussion of meetings:
-hold twice per year (once separately, once with another event/conference)
-next meeting in the Spring of 1999 at University of Minnesota
-agenda for next meeting could include case studies discussed at meeting or distributed in advance
Evaluation of meeting:
-The good experiences included the size of group, dinner, attitude of
everyone, we had fun, supportive environment, agenda was specific but
flexible enough to allow some wandering, there was some debate and
contention over issues (e.g., discussion of pros/cons of centralized vs. decentralized policy making), and timing with sports events was thought to be a good thing by one participant (although there was not consensus on this last point)
-Other than we had to rely on our photographic memories to remember what is on the Yale policy page, the only complaint was the chairs in room (not bad given all of the details necessary to pull of such an event!)
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
|
|
Related content |
