Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 111

Recommendation 111
Department Admissions
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The Office of Public Affairs does a superior job of marketing the university with the limited resources available and we wholeheartedly support allocating more resources to improve the quality and performance in this area.

Centrality to Mission
While we acknowledge that the Office of Public Affairs has a broad mission as the primary external communication arm of the university, we also believe that each department has a unique message to communicate. This message is likely to be compromised by a hierarchy structure where the new communications employee does not report to the department/s they are hired to serve. Perhaps more significantly, they may not even report to the division they are serving. Without direct accountability, there is no incentive for this employee to be a champion for the office communications. Conflicting interests and long term satisfaction issues may be common in this scenario and can have a negative impact on the production of staff members that are dependent on the effectiveness of various communications media.

Quality and Outcomes
Each office has different criteria for the quality of its communication methods and deliverables. While some of this can be attributed to limited resources, much is based on a lack of direction. Developing editorial style guides, print style guides, pre-approved images, and workshops on producing publications would go a long way to bridge the conformity gap in university publications.

Efficiency
Bigger is not always better. While extra staffing is always welcome, it is not necessarily the most efficient use of university funds. For example, common software such as Photoshop has to be purchased independently by each office. It would be highly inefficient to allocate funding for new staff to do work that can already be done by existing staff if provided the necessary tools.

Opportunity Analysis
This is a great opportunity to exercise economy of scale by maximizing the productivity of our current staff while centralizing resources that may not be available to all offices. We believe the following recommendations will allow the university to generate a message consistent with the capital campaign, while allowing each office to communicate with their specific constituencies as they feel necessary.

Therefore, we support the recommendation with the following modifications:

1. Fund university wide communication tools. These might include site license software, a campus web content management system that is both flexible and easy to use, and quality web analytical software so that each office can better plan and manage the content of their website.
2. Develop editorial style guides, print style guides, pre-approved images, and other guidelines to help each office remain consistent with efforts to maintain the university reputation and image.
3. Allocate funding for a centralized liaison office within the Office of Public Affairs to educate, advise, and when requested, perform necessary work for offices or divisions as needed.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department ASI PRSM
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 8 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation We really like this recommendation, but are interested in more information about how it will affect ASI. ASI’s Gas Creative Group (Gas) has become a major resource for University design and communications. Gas is almost entirely staffed by students who get invaluable experience as employees who are held accountable and are given much student development attention. We would like to understand the affects on Gas and to see a student development aspect incorporated into this recommendation.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department AVP Student Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Full support of Public Affairs receiving more money for marketing. It would be necessary to hire professionals that have experience marketing and communication to students and to potential students.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Career Center
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 12 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation We support the establishment of consistent graphics standards across the university, as well as additional support for ensuring communications from the Division of Student Affairs are consistent with University branding.

However, we believe that the ability to develop communications targeted at specific audiences be maintained at the department level. We also believe that clear guidelines need to be established to ensure that timelines that are established and adhered to for each communications piece meet the needs of departments, and that communications professionals are responsive to the operating needs of departments.

In addition, departments should not incur any additional costs for design or printing due to the establishment of a centralized communications function.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Children's Center
Consensus Opinion 1 out of 1 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Marketing media is okay
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Computer Science
Consensus Opinion 11 out of 12 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The computer science department supports the establishment of specialists in the colleges to coordinate communication for both internal and external entities.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Dean of Students
Consensus Opinion 4 out of 4 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Explanation: We completely support this recommendation. There is a need to focus specifically on campus pride with current students, who will become Cal Poly Pomona alumni and are prospective donors. We recommend hiring a marketing media and promotions specialist.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Enrollment Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The lack of campus funding sources for prospective student marketing has significantly hampered the ability of the campus to get the word out about the strengths, unique attributes and value of a Cal Poly Pomona education. As a result, the campus has not been as competitive with recruitment of prospective students as desired/ needed. Effective marketing also serves to effectively recruit faculty and staff and attract potential donors.

We strongly support this recommendation for a DOD model to integrate and significantly expand the marketing and communication efforts of the campus. The integration and consistency of this approach will reap multiple benefits with multiple audiences.

As the plan is developed, it will be important to identify the level of additional funding that will be needed to support the actual development and production of additional marketing materials in addition to the staffing funding requirements. We recommend that a review be completed of funding levels with the institutions with whom we compete would provide benchmarks for the additional commitment of permanent funds that would be required. With regards to funding for prospective student marketing, 2006/07 was the first year that funds were allocated ($30,000). In the past, any marketing material was funded by salary savings or an occasional one-time allocation. We anticipate that the gap between the $30,000 allocated and what we will need to have a comprehensive, stable marketing presence will be significant.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Enrollment Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The lack of campus funding sources for prospective student marketing has significantly hampered the ability of the campus to get the word out about the strengths, unique attributes and value of a Cal Poly Pomona education. As a result, the campus has not been as competitive with recruitment of prospective students as desired/ needed. Effective marketing also serves to effectively recruit faculty and staff and attract potential donors.

We strongly support this recommendation for a DOD model to integrate and significantly expand the marketing and communication efforts of the campus. The integration and consistency of this approach will reap multiple benefits with multiple audiences.

As the plan is developed, it will be important to identify the level of additional funding that will be needed to support the actual development and production of additional marketing materials in addition to the staffing funding requirements. We recommend that a review be completed of funding levels with the institutions with whom we compete would provide benchmarks for the additional commitment of permanent funds that would be required. With regards to funding for prospective student marketing, 2006/07 was the first year that funds were allocated ($30,000). In the past, any marketing material was funded by salary savings or an occasional one-time allocation. We anticipate that the gap between the $30,000 allocated and what we will need to have a comprehensive, stable marketing presence will be significant.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department I & IT APPLICATIONS
Consensus Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation
Minority Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation We do have need for publishing documents on this campus. To meet those needs, we recommend a Document Repository Model.
REVISED
KEY BENEFITS OF MAKING THIS CHANGE:
1. This approach does not force people to create documents
that the system can process. It processes documents that
meet the needs of the author.
2. All documents are processed regardless of content. That
will support e-help, flyers, memos, news articles
newsletters, policy documents, presentations, procedure
documents, spreadsheets and user guides.
3. Poly Updates could be moved from E-Mail to posted in the
Document Repository.
4. Polycentric could link to the Document Repository when
showing the details behind the story lead on the web
page.
5. Documents must be portable as E-Mail attachments, for
download from web and for mobility on laptops.
6. Documents will print on any printer on campus without
conversion or special drivers.
7. Documents can be viewed from the web browser.
8. Documents will be ADA and ATI compliant.
9. Documents will have a Cal-Poly look as was done for web
pages.
10. Documents will be easy to maintain.
11. Application software will provide completely automated
publishing of documents on the web. Additional staffing
would not be required. If a department needed a technical
writer or additional staff, they would hire based on
their need.

KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION:
1. Have campus standards and templates for creating
documents.
2. I & IT Applications will assist with selection and
implementation of software.
3. I & IT Networks and Servers will assist with
configuration and installation of a server. Cost for
server is around $2500.
4. A perpetual license for up to 10 web sites and up to 2500
documents costs around $4800. Adding 2500 CAD documents
adds $2850. If we expand beyond 2500 documents, we should
buy the expansion pack within the first year to reduce
our total costs. If we plan and implement properly, we
could have no long term cost of ownership. 1. Have campus
standards and templates for creating documents.

Recommendation 111
Department I & IT APPLICATIONS
Consensus Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation
Minority Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation We do have need for publishing documents on this campus. To meet those needs, we recommend a Document Repository Model.
1. Have campus standards and templates for creating documents.
2. This approach does not force people to create documents
that the system can process. It processes documents that
meet the needs of the originator.
3. All documents are processed regardless of content. That
will support e-help, flyers, memos, news articles
newsletters, policy documents, presentations, procedure
documents, spreadsheets and user guides.
4. Poly Updates could be moved from E-Mail to posted in the
Document Repository.
5. Polycentric could link to the Document Repository when
showing the details behind the story lead on the web
page.
6. Documents must be portable as E-Mail attachments, for
download from web and for mobility on laptops.
7. Documents will print on any printer on campus without
conversion or special drivers.
8. Documents can be viewed from the web browser.
9. Documents will be ADA and ATI compliant.
10. Documents will have a Cal-Poly look as was done for web
pages.
11. Documents will be easy to maintain.
12. Application software will provide completely automated
publishing of documents on the web. Additional staffing
would not be required. If a department needed a technical
writer or additional staff, they would hire based on
their need.
13. I & IT Applications will assist with selection and
implementation of software.
14. I & IT Networks and Servers will assist with
configuration and installation of a server. Cost for
server is around $2500.
15. A perpetual license for up to 10 web sites and up to 2500
documents costs around $4800. Adding 2500 CAD documents
adds $2850. If we expand beyond 2500 documents, we should
buy the expansion pack within the first year to reduce
our total costs. If we plan and implement properly, we
could have no long term cost of ownership.

Recommendation 111
Department I&IT Division
Consensus Opinion 44 out of 78 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation 111 I&IT Division Response to Coordinated University Communication

As written in its present form, I&IT cannot support University Prioritization & Recovery Recommendation 111. Although I&IT supports a unified communications “message” and strategy, the wording in current form implies a takeover of key communications functions of I&IT personnel that I&IT believes would be inefficient and a step backward.

Several concerns arise when reviewing the recommendation. It is unclear whether this proposal includes specific new personnel or the capturing of existing personnel. It is unclear whether University Advancement or other divisions would pay for any new personnel. It is also implied Public Affairs would edit all forms of public-facing communications, such as I&IT’s web pages. This is handled by the division’s communications officer and our Leadership Team, and we do not believe that it could effectively be edited by non-technical writers.

The proposal mentions web specialists. I&IT has a web specialist who dedicates 80% of her time to maintaining eHelp. If this position were integrated with the Public Affairs expansion, we could not maintain and update eHelp and our web pages as efficiently and quickly as we do now. This could easily add another layer of approval, which could delay needed updates on technology services. The unique workings of I&IT and its services would take a new specialist a long time to come up to speed on the unique operations and services of I&IT.

Past history has shown that I&IT writing about its services, personnel reorganizations and other news has been the most effective and accurate method of news dissemination. These activities are best handled by I&IT’s trained professional communications staff and then linked through the currently successful and cooperative efforts with the editors of Poly Updates and Polycentric. We have personnel in the division who know how to “sing out of the same choir book” as Public Affairs. Our past articles with the Poly Post and our web pages are examples of this.

Although I&IT agrees that the quality of web communication varies greatly across the campus, we are concerned about two additional aspects of the recommendation. First, it is not clear from the recommendation what skills would be encompassed in a "web specialist." I&IT has a department of web specialists. Second, it is not clear from the recommendation what would be the scope of "communication." I&IT provides communications to users about web templates, web publishing, accessibility, and other topics, through eHelp and the Web Team web pages, and it is not clear how a non-specialist could aid this process.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department I&IT Support
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 10 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation As written in its present form, I&IT Support cannot support University Prioritization & Recovery Recommendation 111. Although I&IT supports a unified communications “message” and strategy, the wording in current form implies a takeover of key communications functions of I&IT personnel that I&IT Support believes would be inefficient and a step backward.

Several concerns arise when reviewing the recommendation. It is unclear whether this proposal includes specific new personnel or the capturing of existing personnel. It is unclear whether University Advancement or other divisions would pay for any new personnel. It is also implied Public Affairs would edit all forms of public-facing communications, such as I&IT’s web pages. This is handled by the division’s communications officer and our Leadership Team, and we do not believe that it could effectively be edited by non-technical writers.

The proposal mentions web specialists. I&IT Support has a web specialist who dedicates 80% of her time to maintaining eHelp. If this position were integrated with the Public Affairs expansion, we could not maintain and update eHelp and our web pages as efficiently and quickly as we do now. This could easily add another layer of approval, which could delay needed updates on technology services. The unique workings of I&IT and its services would take a new specialist a long time to come up to speed on the unique operations and services of I&IT.

Past history has shown that I&IT writing about its services, personnel reorganizations and other news has been the most effective and accurate method of news dissemination. These activities are best handled by I&IT’s trained professional communications staff and then linked through the currently successful and cooperative efforts with the editors of Poly Updates and Polycentric. We have personnel in the division who know how to “sing out of the same choir book” as Public Affairs. Our past articles with the Poly Post and our web pages are examples of this.

Although I&IT Support agrees that the quality of web communication varies greatly across the campus, we are concerned about two additional aspects of the recommendation. First, it is not clear from the recommendation what skills would be encompassed in a "web specialist." I&IT has a department of web specialists. Second, it is not clear from the recommendation what would be the scope of "communication." I&IT provides communications to users about web templates, web publishing, accessibility, and other topics, through eHelp and the Web Team web pages, and it is not clear how a non-specialist could aid this process.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department I&IT Web Development
Consensus Opinion 5 out of 5 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Although we agree that the quality of web communication varies greatly across the campus, we are concerned about two aspects of the recommendation. First, it is not clear from the recommendation what skills would be encompassed in a "web specialist", but we are a department of web specialists, in the technical sense, and we need no assistance. Second, it is not clear from the recommendation what would be the scope of "communication". Our department provides communications to users about web templates, web publishing, accessibility, and other topics, through eHelp and the Web Team web pages, and it is not clear how a non-specialist could aid this process.

If the plan related only to external communications, did not disrupt existing communications channels to campus constituencies, and relied on I&IT Web Development for assistance with the technical aspects of web design, we could support it.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Intercollegiate Athletics
Consensus Opinion 23 out of 23 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Intercollegiate Athletics believes that one united message in support of student recruitment and public relations is important to future growth of the institution.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Kellogg Honors College
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation #111 Coordinated University communication

The Kellogg Honors College supports this recommendation because we see the need for such a unit within the academic affairs division in order to communicate research and scholarly achievement by faculty and programs in an effective and professional manner to the public on an ongoing basis.

There is significant synergy between the appropriate dissemination of the scholarly work of our faculty and its ability to recruit high achieving students to the Kellogg Honors Program. A communications person working with these units within the academic affairs office would be in an ideal position to articulate the message to our various publics in a professional manner that would meet marketing standards and serve our development and recruitment efforts.

Literature is sent out by our university to high schools, community colleges and other institutions; it is also sent to our donors and alumni. This could be coordinated by a communications office. We see a long-term benefit not only for our College but for the university.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Office of Financial Aid
Consensus Opinion 5 out of 5 faculty/staff : Modifications
Consensus Explanation We agree with the recommendation to have a Director of Development-like cadre of communication experts in colleges and divisions. This will make for accurate and thorough communication and marketing for the entire campus. We would only caution that this would need to be in collaboration with all the departments and not give one individual autonomous control











Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Office of Student Life & Cultural Centers
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 12 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation We strongly support this recommendation. Communication is key to maximize existing programs and services we have for students, to coordinate efforts, and to enhance the overall sense of community amongst faculty, staff, and students. CPP accomplishes great things, but we do not always have a coordinated way of sharing this information with one another or to external constituents. This is especially key as we move toward the possibility of a capital campaign and fundraising becomes increasingly important. We need to step up our university image, and Public Affairs needs more support to accomplish this important task. We strongly favor the idea of a DOD model for Communication. We are currently very de-centralized and the lack of coordinated communication adds to the notion of campus "silos." We have a particularly challenging time in communicating with students. After the dismantling of BroncoEvents and Bytes, there is no universal way of communicating messages to students, except for the few highly necessary emails. Many students miss out on great opportunities, and sometimes important deadlines, due to the lack of coordinated communication.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Orientation Services
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation If Public Affairs is to take the leadership of such coordination, it should also include the establishment and management of the CPP brand and the establishment of timely process, protocol and approvals.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Public Affairs
Consensus Opinion 6 out of 6 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation A great university cannot be perceived as great if this message doesn’t reach its audience… if it’s poorly written and delivered… if it’s inconsistent… if it’s non-existent… and if it doesn’t have a great Public Affairs/Communication Department that can drive this message home day in and day out.

Our department believes a plan in support of coordinated university communication will go a long way in filling the communication gap on campus and promoting the university more consistently, both with internal and external audiences. By having writing, editing, media, graphics and web support for the various divisions and colleges who report to Public Affairs, the instant benefit is being able to expand the operation of the office while benefitting from having communication specialists who live and work in the colleges.

They will be able to build relationships with college faculty/staff, promoting not only their interests and priorities, but also serving as conduits to a more central communication office. But by the same token, the mission of the expanded department should be clear and focused on improving the overall university image.

This new opportunity will also bring with it supervisory challenges for the award-winning Public Affairs office, which has always enjoyed a collaborative and dynamic office environment over many years. With expanded staff members and increased responsibilities, office dynamics will be impacted. However, Public Affairs has the right skill sets, the professional and supervisory know-how, as well as the experience to see such a plan to fruition. And a successful one will ultimately allow the university to carry out strategic communication, outreach, web, media relations, graphic standards, marketing and PR plans for Cal Poly Pomona.

In addition to the prospects of improving communication vehicles and relationships on- and off-campus, the ability to operate a successful capital campaign critically relies on a stable and well-positioned Public Affairs/Communication office. It is well-known in the university advancement field that communication is key to a successful development campaign. With a feasibility study for a comprehensive capital campaign currently in the works, it is imperative that such a comprehensive communication plan be developed to complement this important phase in the university’s history.

And as the university prepares to expand its student enrollment in the near future, not only do opportunities for enhanced communication increase, but for communication challenges as well. This team of PR professionals will be well-positioned to handle (as well as proactively avert) university crises to maintain confidence in, and support of, the university.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department ReEntry & WoMen's Resource Center
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Support “coordinated University Communication plan”, which would benefit identity and community building. Support the idea of “cadre of communications marketing and web specialists” with Public Affairs leadership. Increasing visibility is key, but hope scope/size of oversight responsibilities does not negatively impact “prioritization” of info when dealing with such a department, or overly favor those with more resources.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Registrar's Office
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Student Affairs Administration
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation We support the coordinated university communication model as it will give departments the support they need for marketing and written communications but allow for a more coordinated look to all materials and standardize the type of communications the university sends out.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Student Outreach & Visitor Services
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 8 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation This recommendation was highly favored. There was excitement about making our university, its programs and services look more appealing to prospective students. There was a discussion about the need to make our web pages more visually pleasing, easier to navigate, and user friendly. The only concern was about the possibility of not being able to market and outreach to our various audiences in the most creative and innovative ways because of possible restrictions set up by the Office of Public Affairs.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Undergraduate Studies
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Recommendation 111 – Coordinated University Communication

The scope of this recommendation is not clear. It might apply only to publication and flyers. However, there is the comment that even “billing statements send conflicting messages to students” implying that these types of communications would also come under this group of communication experts.

Undergraduate Studies would welcome the help of communication experts with the catalog. Much time is spent on page layout that could be spent on other efforts more closely relate to curriculum. However, we do not welcome the idea of all public communications needing to go through this expert, required to put our letter in a queue with other correspondence from the other units in Academic Affairs. Except for major communication efforts – catalog, program flyers, etc, this seems like an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation This is a great idea to help ensure comparable graphic and publications support for academic programs. Given the current budget and funding concerns, there may need to be some modifications to how this is implemented (cost-benefit analysis). Modifications in short-term funding, shared or dual reporting, or additional flexibility to address positions already in place are in order.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department University Housing Services
Consensus Opinion 23 out of 23 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation A coordinated effort under Public Affairs to oversee campus communications seems appropriate. There are communications that go out to students on a yearly basis that could be better coordinated with other departments to provide a more complete and accurate package of information. Balancing the different deadlines of departments may prove challenging, but a vehicle for sharing pertinent deadlines for freshmen, for example, could be compiled, similar to the master calendar but for incoming students. Housing should be included in this.

The modification suggestion includes the concept if this is a one-stop shop concept, then careful consideration of the specific needs and timelines of individual departments must be undertaken. Some departments would need a specialized and/or dedicated person based on the amount and scope of communications required to conduct business. Departments would need to have final approval and have a level of control regarding the timeline of projects. Housing feels strongly about the image and message that we send to our perspective residents, current residents, and parents.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 111
Department Vice President's Office, University Advancement
Consensus Opinion 19 out of 19 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The staff in the departments that report directly to the Vice President for University Advancement strongly agree with this recommendation. Moving in this direction will greatly increase the consistency of university branding and quality. An additional benefit will come from the cross-training and expanded experience that will occur by bringing these resources together into a single organization and under unified leadership.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.