Skip to Content

UPPS 01.01.01 - University Policy and Procedure Statement System

University Policy and Procedure Statement System

UPPS No. 01.01.01
Issue No. 8
Effective Date: 6/08/2015
Next Review Date: 4/01/2020 (E5Y)
Sr. Reviewer: Director, University Planning and Assessment


    1. The University Policy and Procedure Statement (UPPS) system provides:

      1. a standard form of communicating university policies and procedures;

      2. a structure for regular interval reviews of university policies and procedures;

      3. a means for reviewing policies and procedures on an as-needed basis to remain consistent with current practices; and

      4. a means for assuring agreement between current practices and applicable regulations and laws.

    2. UPPSs impact all Texas State University staff, faculty, and students by providing behavior guidelines and communicating new responsibilities, rights, or regulations instituted on campus. The university website includes all official UPPSs, and updates to policies are posted on the UPPS updates website.

    3. Any person within the university community may originate or recommend a new UPPS or request revisions to an existing UPPS.

    4. The appropriate persons as listed in the reviewers’ section of the policy will review UPPSs routinely according to their review cycles (e.g., every year (EY), every other year (EOY), odd numbered years (ONY), even number years (ENY), every two years (E2Y), etc.) from the last action date.

    5. The originating department will assess a UPPS based on its:

      1. necessity;

      2. ability to reflect the best practice;

      3. clarity and understandability; and

      4. effect on customers and stakeholders.

    6. The official version of a UPPS is available on the university website, while hard copies can be found in the office of University Planning and Assessment (UPA).

    7. The UPPS Review minutes note the effective date of the UPPS.

    8. UPA is the official repository for all UPPS documents, including current official documents, all past versions of UPPSs, and reduced or deleted UPPSs.

    9. If a conflict occurs between a UPPS and a policy reflected in documents of a higher authority (e.g., federal law, state law, Coordinating Board policy, Regents’ Rules, etc.), the policy as outlined in the document of higher authority will prevail.

    10. If a conflict occurs between a divisional policy statement and the policy outlined in a UPPS, the UPPS will prevail.

    11. All university employees are responsible for staying current on UPPS changes.


    1. Reviewer – a stakeholder in the policy or procedure being outlined or reviewed.

    2. Senior Reviewer (SR) – typically the person most knowledgeable about the policy. If the identity of the SR is not apparent, the President’s Cabinet will identify the correct individual.

    3. Executive Assistant (EA) – either the appropriate division’s executive assistant or a designee.

    4. Director of UPA – the person responsible for maintaining the review process and posting approved UPPSs to the university website.

    5. Congressional style – a method of mark-up in which deletions are lined through and additions are underlined using the Microsoft Word editing format (Track Changes).

    6. Substantive change – a change to policy that impacts the policy or process outlined.

    7. Non-Substantive change – a change that does not impact the policy or process outlined. Examples include typographical errors, grammatical errors, and title changes.

    8. Pen and ink changes – any revisions where policy or process require only minimal changes or only specific sections of a policy are addressed without a review of the entire document, producing a “Pen and Ink” revision.

    9. Reviewers’ Approval Sheet – a document signed by all reviewers indicating they concur with the proposed revision. In lieu of a Reviewers’ Approval Sheet, emails from ALL reviewers may serve to indicate approval.

    10. Reduced Document – an official policy statement that was once a UPPS but has been reduced to the division level as a policy and procedure statement (PPS).

    11. Review Cycles – a period of time when a policy is due for review by the respective divisions to incorporate updated information.


    1. The SR updates the document to include all necessary modifications.

      1. Using congressional style, the SR prepares a revision of the UPPS based on changes, if any, in the policy or procedure since the most recent review. The SR also incorporates any non-substantive changes. A short justification statement for substantive changes should be inserted immediately after the change in red.

      2. The SR routes the revised draft and a Reviewers’ Approval Sheet to all listed reviewers.

        1. Multiple reviewers – The revised UPPS will address comments from all reviewers. The SR will obtain a consensus from all reviewers regarding proposed changes. Completing the Reviewers’ Approval Sheet or an email approval demonstrates consensus.

        2. Lack of consensus – If reviewers cannot come to consensus, the SR will determine which changes to recommend to the President’s Cabinet. The SR must make the views of the other reviewers known to the Cabinet in the comment section of the Reviewers’ Approval Sheet.

        3. Lack of approval – If a reviewer refuses to sign off on the Reviewers’ Approval Sheet after several notification attempts, the SR will notate on that reviewer’s signature line on the Reviewers’ Approval Sheet that the reviewer refuses to sign, and the decision can be made to remove that person as a reviewer of the UPPS.

    2. The SR emails a copy of the revised draft UPPS (with live and accurate links, where appropriate) and the completed Reviewers’ Approval Sheet to the appropriate divisional EA, who will then forward to UPA for tracking. In cases where the changes to be made are non-substantive only or are specific to only selected sections of the policy and not a complete review, the SR will note in the email that the revision is “pen and ink” and explain the details.

    3. At this point, the EA should make sure all URLs link to the appropriate document on the division’s website and then send the draft UPPS out to all other divisions, via the divisional EAs, for review and comment. The EA will:

      1. mark the revision as a pen and ink if it requires only minimal changes to one or two sections and clearly indicate that proposed modifications are not based on a full document review, therefore, only relevant comments to proposed section changes will be accepted; and

      2. ask divisional EAs to send comments directly to UPA by a specified deadline, preferably within two weeks.

    4. By the stated deadline, each EA will compile responses and send them via email to UPA, noting whether or not the comments are substantive. If a division has no comments, that EA will send a “no comment” message to UPA.

    5. The senior administrative assistant in the Special Assistant to the President’s office circulates the draft UPPS to:

      1. The Texas State University System legal staff;

      2. the director of Athletics;

      3. the chief diversity officer and director of Equity and Access; and

      4. Staff Council.

    6. The senior administrative assistant in the Special Assistant to the President’s office forwards comments received to UPA.

    7. Once all divisional comments are received, the director of UPA will compile the comments and sort them as substantive and non-substantive. The director then sends the comments document to the SR for consideration and copies the appropriate divisional EA. The correspondence will include a deadline for response.

    8. The SR should address each comment in blue ink, noting whether to incorporate the change or to discuss it further. Once completed, the SR should send the document, complete with comments, to UPA and copy the appropriate EA.

    9. Based on the feedback received from the SR, the director of UPA will determine whether to submit the draft UPPS for electronic approval or to add it to the agenda for the next President’s Cabinet meeting.

      1. Electronic Approval: The director of UPA sends the senior reviewer comments document to the President’s Cabinet after incorporating or resolving all comments or indicating no comments were made.

        1. If electronic approval fails, the director of UPA will request that the draft UPPS be added to the next President’s Cabinet agenda for further discussion and possibly invite the SR to the meeting.

        2. If the UPPS is approved electronically, that approval is reflected in the UPPS Review minutes, which is then sent to all EAs and Cabinet members.

        3. The appropriate EA will incorporate comments (if present) into the electronic version of the UPPS based on the SR comments previously submitted. The EA then sends the UPPS with comments incorporated and links that are active and working, along with any hard copy attachments, if applicable, to UPA via email for final processing.

      2. President’s Cabinet Meeting:

        1. If required, the director of UPA will request that a UPPS discussion be added to a President’s Cabinet agenda.

          1. The director of UPA will notify all EAs of the time and date for the Cabinet meeting discussion.

          2. If necessary, the appropriate EA will invite the SRs with UPPSs on the agenda to the meeting, noting the specific time scheduled for each.

          3. The President’s Cabinet will then meet to review the disputed UPPSs.

        2. Upon receipt of the President’s Cabinet minutes, the appropriate EA will incorporate comments.

          1. The appropriate EA will incorporate all comments based on the SR’s written response and any further instructions from the President’s Cabinet.

          2. The appropriate EA will email the UPPS with comments incorporated and all attachments, if applicable, to UPA for final processing and distribution.

    10. The “Pen & Ink” change process is also used to document changes to existing policies that result from President’s Cabinet deliberations and presidential decisions. In such cases, the president will determine on a case-by-case basis whether the change requires further immediate campus-wide review or whether such review will be deferred until the next regular review cycle.


    1. The appropriate vice president will identify reviewers when a new UPPS has been proposed. As necessary, the President’s Cabinet will select a SR in cases of more than one assigned reviewer.

      1. Reviewers develop a draft UPPS that addresses the identified needs (see proper format for detailed instructions). Please see the Editorial Style Guide adopted by Texas State.

      2. All key stakeholders must have an opportunity to comment.

      3. Reviewers must consider legal ramifications.

      4. Reviewers must address conflicting issues with the policy across divisions.

    2. The SR forwards the completed UPPS draft, along with the signed Reviewers’ Approval Sheet, to the appropriate divisional EA.

    3. The EA will contact UPA for an assigned UPPS number to the document.

    4. At this point, the EA sends the draft UPPS out to all other divisions, via the divisional EAs, for review and comment:

      1. The EA will direct reviewers to send comments via their divisional EA to UPA by a specified deadline, usually within two weeks.

      2. The EA will also forward the reviewed draft to UPA, along with the completed Reviewers’ Approval Sheet.

    5. Follow steps outlined in Sections 03.04 through 03.09, above.

    6. Special procedures for the approval of a UPPS without prior review.

      1. If the president determines that circumstances require the immediate implementation of a new UPPS, the president may waive any or all of the steps outlined above and approve a UPPS without following the review cycle described above. The president has approval authority of any waiver or exception to a UPPS not otherwise specified in the UPPS.

      2. Such presidential approval authorizes immediate implementation and dissemination of the policy, with a substantive review to follow.


    1. Distribute monthly a rolling 12-month list of documents up for review, along with review dates to EAs.

    2. Ensure receipt of comments in a timely manner and send any needed reminders to the EAs.

    3. Guide the UPPS process in accordance with this policy.

    4. Facilitate the electronic approval process and schedule, facilitate, record and distribute minutes.

    5. Edit the final UPPS documents for style consistency and route for signature approval to the SR and his or her chain of command.

    6. Post the official version of all UPPS documents on the university website.

    7. Maintain an index of all UPPSs, the most recent review date, names of reviewers, and all other pertinent information to facilitate the review process.

    8. Submit a list of delinquent UPPSs to the President’s Cabinet monthly.


    1. Each vice president shall implement a divisional policy and procedure statement system, as necessary, and post it on the division’s website.

    2. The affected offices will negotiate concerns resulting from PPSs and, if necessary, refer those concerns to the President’s Cabinet.

    3. Divisional PPSs specify policies and procedures that guide each division in executing areas of responsibility.

    4. In order to avoid conflicts among divisional PPSs, each vice president will assure consultations between appropriate stakeholders in other divisions.


    1. The President’s Cabinet will assure the timely review and approval of all official UPPS documents.

    1. Reviewers of this UPPS include the following:

      Position Date
      Director, University Planning and Assessment April 1 E5Y
      Senior Administrative Assistant, Academic Affairs April 1 E5Y
      Executive Assistant, Finance and Support Services April 1 E5Y
      Executive Assistant, Information Technology April 1 E5Y
      Executive Assistant, Student Affairs April 1 E5Y
      Executive Assistant, University Advancement April 1 E5Y
      Senior Administrative Assistant, Special Assistant to the President April 1 E5Y

    This UPPS has been approved by the following individuals in their official capacities and represents Texas State policy and procedure from the date of this document until superseded.

    Director, University Planning and Assessment; senior reviewer of this UPPS

    Associate Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness

    Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs