CSU Policy/Written Directives Framework Initiative Update

1. CSU Policy/Written Directives Framework Initiative Update 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 shouldnot 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???????