University Secretariat Review

University Secretariat – External Review 2025 Report

September 16, 2025

Review Team

Julian Demkiw – University Secretary and Chief Governance Officer, Governance Office | University of Saskatchewan

Sheree Drummond – Secretary of the Governing Council, Office of the Governing Council | University of Toronto

Genevieve Gauthier-Chalifour  –  University Secretary, Secretariat | University of Waterloo

Michael Thompson –  Professor, Chemical Engineering, McMaster University

 

Review Coordinator

Nancy McKenzie – Associate Director, Academic Projects and Reviews McMaster University

Executive Summary

Preamble

The University Secretariat serves as McMaster’s central governance engine – its articulated mission is “to guide and facilitate the responsible and transparent decision-making processes for the governing bodies of McMaster University.” Its mission is achieved through its expertise and breadth of knowledge in the five areas of its mandate: provision of professional support to the Board of Governors, Senate, University Planning Committee and their respective committees and councils; facilitation of university policy development and renewal; coordination of Senate and Board member elections; executive searches for senior administrator appointments; process oversight for university tribunal hearings; and, oversight of information governance and privacy law compliance.[1] The University Secretariat is led by the University Secretary and Chief Governance & Privacy Officer. Reporting jointly to the Chair of the Board of Governors and the President, the University Secretary provides strategic direction and day-to-day oversight for a nine-person team across the office’s respective portfolio areas.  A seasoned governance professional, the University Secretary is widely praised for balancing nimble responsiveness with deep expertise and positioning the Secretariat as a trusted advisor to university leaders, faculty, staff, and students.

The University Secretariat has undergone a series of changes to its organizational structure over the past several years to support delivery of its mandate and increased complexities in higher education governance and the sector environment. Notably, McMaster is also experiencing a significant change in leadership with a new President, Provost, Vice-President Research, and Chancellor in 2025-26. Within such an environment the Secretariat will play an important role in both providing stability and continuity, as well as providing support, as appropriate, to these new leaders.

Strengths

Key strengths of the University Secretariat include:

• Service-oriented leadership and “spirit of service” culture and approach to mandate. The office is – and is seen to be – well run, organized and responsive.
• Sophisticated planning, coordination and agility to support governance bodies.
• Deep expertise in respective portfolio areas have earned the office a reputation as a sound advisor and “go to” for stakeholders within the university community.
• Commitment to governance excellence, openness and transparency as evidenced by increased access to meetings through the recent addition of livestreaming.
• Team development and resourcing have led to strong relationships with partner offices and members of the senior leadership team.
• Board leadership is extremely well supported, and the office is seen to be highly responsive, with deep knowledge in both good governance practices and institutional culture.

Areas of Improvement

Proposed areas of opportunity to enhance service and support fulfilment of the University Secretariat mandate include:

• Privacy portfolio resourcing – in light of increased volume and changes in complexity due to legislative environment.
• Clarity on role of the University Secretariat and policy owners/sponsors in relation to policy development, review, communication, and interpretation.
• Hearings process review – length of time to completion and perception of overly bureaucratic and legalistic processes are sources of tension.
• Governance processes reviews – consider situation of Graduate Council responsibilities, clarity on the role and mandate of the University Planning Committee, and potential to review board committee structure.
• Use of IT – consider how technology can be leveraged to support and streamline workflows.
• Distribution of work – review assigned portfolios and responsibilities/accountabilities for assistant secretaries and associate secretary with a view to reducing duplication where appropriate.
• Education and awareness – to foster better awareness and understanding of decision-making processes and the role of governing bodies and the Secretariat amongst campus stakeholders.

Key Recommendations

1. Review resourcing needs for privacy and records management portfolio
   1. Add dedicated FTEs or analysts to handle FIPPA/PHIPA requests, algorithmic impact assessments and records management pilots.
   2. Consider development of an institutional privacy and records management strategy.
2.  Develop guidance document on policy development process
   1. Including roles and responsibilities for responsible offices, executive sponsors, University Secretariat.
3. Prioritize review of academic misconduct and appeals policy and processes
   1. Consider use of an external law firm to support the review and make specific recommendations with a view to reducing length of hearing processes and reliance on external firm to support regular activity.
   2. Review and augment training opportunities for decision-makers.
   3. Promote opportunity for a community-of-practice for professionals providing university administrative tribunal support services.
4. Review support model for Graduate Council and whether responsibility could shift to University Secretariat
   1. Consider need for accompanying resources to support this work.
5. Review the role and mandate of the University Planning Committee as part of the McMaster governance framework
   1. Including consideration to the spirit and intent of the committee as contemplated as part of a shared governance model in the McMaster University Act, 1976, and with a view to transparent, accountable, effective and responsive governance processes.
6.  Consider review of the Board of Governors committee structure
   1. As part of a holistic review for currency, and synergies in work to be leveraged for effective, efficient governance.
7. Review portfolio distribution among staff supporting governance activities
   1. Including opportunities to reduce duplication of effort and leverage experience and expertise of current staff, with a view to balancing depth and breadth of knowledge for staff across the Secretariat portfolio.
8. Leverage opportunities for technology and training
   1. Review use of technology and opportunities to reduce duplication, automate workflows, and more seamlessly collaborate.
   2. Review opportunities for education and training on governance and policy for internal stakeholders, including faculty and administrator onboarding.
   3. Enhance existing governance-101 training for members of governing bodies.
   4. Consider expanding the form of delivery of this training to include online modules, executive briefs, procedural fairness and “how governance works” guides so faculty, staff and students can better understand governance pathways, the Secretariat’s mandate, and self-serve where appropriate.
   5. Separate training series should be implemented for new members of Senate or the Board of Governors (faculty, staff and students), and for decision-makers engaged in Student Appeals.

It is important to note that some recommendations have implications for other areas of the University and that their implementation will require collaboration and potentially some larger cross-functional project teams.

[1] https://secretariat.mcmaster.ca/home/mission-and-mandate/

Mission and Organization

Priorities and Alignment

The mission of the University Secretariat reflects its pivotal role in guiding and facilitating responsible and transparent decision-making across the institution’s governing bodies. Through its broad expertise and institutional knowledge, the Secretariat fulfills its mission in five key areas:

• Governance Support: Provides professional and logistical assistance to the Board of Governors, Senate, University Planning Committee, and their respective committees and advisory bodies.
• Policy Stewardship: Serves as the central repository for Board and Senate policies and facilitates the development, renewal, documentation, and interpretation of university-wide policies.
• Elections & Appointments: Coordinates Senate and Board elections and manages executive searches for senior administrative appointments.
• Hearings and Appeals: Manages and administers the quasi-judicial hearings processes of the University.
• Information Governance: Ensures institutional compliance with privacy legislation and serves as a resource by providing advice, guidance and policy direction.

This mandate is well aligned with the goals and priorities of McMaster’s 2021–2024 Strategic Framework. Importantly, the Secretariat’s focus remains on guiding the processes of governance, rather than influencing the outcomes of institutional decisions. Consistent with its mission, the priorities of the University Secretariat align with, and support the advancement of, the priorities of the University as established by the Board of Governors, Senate, and executive leadership.

Organizational Structure

There is a clear and consistent consensus among all the individuals who participated in the review that the McMaster University Secretariat is highly regarded for their quality of service and responsiveness. Interviewees were appreciative of the expertise that the Secretariat provides and recognized the complexity involved in the work.

The Secretariat is organized into four distinct units—Governance Support, Policy & Projects, Privacy Support, and Hearings Support. This is a common structure to governance offices across the Canadian post-secondary sector.  The Secretariat is widely praised for being highly professional and efficient, especially considering its size relative to its mandate, with a total of nine staff members. This has led to a perception that the office is “punching above its weight”. While this structure is common across universities and generally effective, some interviewees point to siloed operations and limited interaction between portfolio areas within the office. This impacts collaboration and cross-functional flexibility.

Overwork was raised as a common concern among interviewees. Notwithstanding the universal high regard for the office, many observed that the office seems overextended, with workload increasing due to institutional complexity, governance demands, and rising privacy responsibilities. While additional resources were added in 2022, some commented on the inability to do strategic work including process and workflow improvements.

Duplication of effort by staff supporting the work of the Board of Governors and Senate was also raised as a consideration. In the current portfolio distribution model, each of the three Assistant University Secretaries is responsible for a suite of committees and has developed deep expertise to support their work.

Governance

Strengths

Broad Coverage: The Secretariat supports all but one of the university-wide governance bodies. (The Graduate Council is supported by the School of Graduate Studies.  Some participants flagged that consideration might be given to bringing the Council within the scope of the Secretariat.) This model ensures appropriate governance expertise and professionalism.

High-Quality Logistical Execution: Many interviewees described the governance support as professional, efficient, and well-structured. The Secretariat is praised for well-organized agendas, coordinated scheduling, and staying responsive under pressure.

Strong Individual Leadership: Leaders of each portfolio area are highly regarded for their committee contributions and support shepherding often complex matters to completion and responding quickly to issues.

Culture of Service: The Secretariat is seen as approachable and supportive, particularly in onboarding new committee members, including students. Their commitment to Q&A sessions ahead of Senate meetings for student participants was cited positively.

Areas of Improvement

Redundancy in Participation: Some questioned the necessity of multiple Secretariat staff attending the same meetings (e.g., the Secretary, Associate Secretary, and respective Assistant Secretary all attending together), suggesting that participation could be more strategic and streamlined. Duplication in review of material was also noted as an opportunity to streamline processes leading to meetings.

Visibility vs. Neutrality: The physical and procedural prominence of the Secretary at some committee meetings (notably Senate) raised concerns about perceived neutrality. It would be helpful to enhance the community’s understanding of the role of the Secretary in meetings. This could happen through a variety of approaches including in onboarding sessions, general governance education sessions, and information available on the Secretariat’s website.

Training & Procedural Clarity: Comments from interviewees from diverse stakeholder groups would suggest that there is confusion on a variety of governance matters, for example:

• Committee membership rules
• How policies flow through committees for approval
• The Secretariat’s own role within committee structures
• Procedural fairness and handling student appeals

Additional opportunities for training and enhanced governance education would be beneficial.

Digital Infrastructure Gaps: The Secretariat’s use of committee-support tools like SharePoint and the governance portal is helpful but not always user-friendly. Broken website links, inaccessible documents, and lack of AODA compliance on the policy website were mentioned as friction points. Students expressed concerns about inadequate use of social media for both training and providing information.

Desire for More Engagement: Some contributors asked for more discussion opportunities during meetings and clearer summaries or executive briefs of committee materials to support informed participation. Meeting agendas could be improved with clearly indicated times in a meeting or at a future meeting where discussions will be offered so that the business of the meeting is less impacted.

University Structural Organization: With the recent changes to governance support provided to the McMaster Innovation Park, the university seems currently positioned to review its organizational chart on the units overseen by the Secretariat and assess whether changes/additions are appropriate.

Policy Development

The University Secretariat at McMaster plays a central coordinating and advisory role in the development, maintenance, and modernization of the institution’s policy landscape. It administers the McMaster University Policy Framework (the “Policy on Policies”) and manages a repository of approximately 180 Board- and Senate-approved policies. Working closely with policy “owners” across the university – typically senior administrators or vice-presidents – the Secretariat helps establish policy review committees, offers guidance on structure and best practices, manages version control, and supports the movement of documents through appropriate governance channels. Inquiries about policy application and interpretation frequently come through the Secretariat, particularly concerning complex documents such as the Approval and Signing Authority Policy.

The Secretariat plays a central facilitative role in the university’s policy ecosystem. Specifically, it:

• Coordinates Policy Development: Staff in the Policy & Projects unit assist policy owners in drafting, revising, and formatting policies. They manage version control, schedule committee reviews, and ensure alignment with governance requirements.
• Guides Approval Pathways: The Secretariat helps navigate policies through the appropriate governance channels—Senate, Board, and relevant subcommittees—ensuring procedural compliance.
• Provides Institutional Memory: With oversight of a large archive of policies (some over 20 years old), the Secretariat offers historical context and cross-policy alignment during revisions.
• Supports Communication: It maintains the policy website and distributes updates, though this function is inconsistently understood or accessed across campus.

Strengths

Trusted Support and Responsiveness: Multiple contributors noted that the Policy & Projects unit is widely respected for being supportive, efficient, and adept at navigating complex policy files to completion (e.g., Accessibility Policy). The Policy Advisor & Projects Officer is seen as crucial in coordinating revisions, scheduling reviews, and managing drafts.

Areas of Improvement

Role Ambiguity: There is confusion about the Secretariat’s responsibility in policy enforcement versus development and a lack of clarity on who “owns” the policy and what enforcement mechanisms are in place.

It is recommended to develop a formalized framework that defines the Secretariat’s versus the policy owner’s responsibilities—from drafting through implementation and compliance.

Outdated and Overdue Policies: Numerous stakeholders noted that many policies are out of date, with no standardized review schedule. The Self Study also flagged that it strives to have policies reviewed on a 5 – 6-year cycle at a minimum, but that it has been more than six years (and in some cases much more) since over half of all the policies have been reviewed/revised. The introduction of sunset clauses and/or automatic review timelines is recommended.  Software tools may prove helpful in triggering these automatic reviews. In addition, as one of the reasons for the inability of the Secretariat to tackle the volume of policy work is because the staff person with responsibility for this work also has responsibility for providing support to executive searches, consideration should be given to decoupling policy support from special projects work.

Communication Gaps: People across campus, including faculty and staff, often don’t know when policies change, how to access them, or what they mean in practice. Clarity is required on the Secretariat’s role in the policy review process and its obligation to maintain the central policy repository, and the role of policy owners in communicating about these policies.

The communication tools deployed by policy owners could include the use of executive summaries, FAQs, and targeted emails to raise awareness of new and revised policies.

Privacy and Records Management

The University Secretariat at McMaster plays a pivotal role in ensuring the university’s compliance with privacy legislation and the responsible management of institutional records. At the heart of this work is the Privacy and Records Management Specialist, who leads efforts to uphold Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA). The Secretariat oversees mandatory privacy training for all employees, investigates privacy breaches, manages access-to-information requests (which have risen significantly in recent years), and helps develop university-wide privacy and records management policies. These responsibilities also include conducting privacy and algorithmic impact assessments for new tools and services, and guiding operational units through consultations, audits, and risk mitigation strategies.

In terms of records management, the Secretariat coordinates the McMaster Records Retention Schedule and leads pilot projects across faculties and administrative units to improve information handling practices. It also supports proactive transparency through resources like the Personal Information Bank Directory and hosts Communities of Practice to build campus-wide engagement. Through training, consultation, and oversight, the Secretariat helps cultivate a privacy-aware culture that’s increasingly vital in a decentralized, data-intensive institutional environment.

Strengths

Dedicated Specialist: The Secretariat now employs a full-time Privacy and Records Management Specialist, a role many interviewees said was long overdue and that has had a significant impact on the quality of the support provided for this critical area.  There was universal recognition of the value of the expert knowledge and guidance.

Privacy Awareness: Efforts to build and strengthen privacy awareness across the institution have had a meaningful impact. The introduction of communities of practice focussed on privacy and records management had been well-received.  

Engagement: McMaster’s participation in provincial privacy networks and the idea of a pan-provincial secretariat group focussing on privacy and records management were highlighted as forward-thinking strategies that promote consistency and shared learning across institutions.

Areas of Improvement

Campus Partnerships:  Although there are connections between some ‘partner units’, for example with the Office of Legal Services through weekly meetings and some shared casework, it is recommended that the relationships with such units should be better defined and formalized.

Increase in Volume and Complexity: The volume and complexity of privacy-related tasks have increased dramatically, especially with new demands from AI, cybersecurity, and evolving privacy legislation.  Even with current resource restraints, consideration should be given to dedicating additional resources to support this work. This will also help to address the need for more attention to institutional records management.

Training & Awareness Gaps:  Campus-wide understanding of privacy obligations and records responsibilities is limited. There was a call for more formal training, clearer documentation, and better communication tools to support compliance and awareness.

Infrastructure & Process Bottlenecks:  New software for privacy case management is in development but won’t be fully implemented for two years. Current tools are underutilized or duplicative, and staff lack time to learn or optimize them.

Supervision and Support of Tribunal Hearings

The Secretariat’s tribunal work is led by the Hearings Manager, who centralizes all administrative support for Board- and Senate-approved appeal and grievance procedures – ranging from student appeals and tenure-and-promotion challenges to faculty discipline and research misconduct cases. This involves maintaining a case-tracking database, coordinating panel member schedules with online tools, managing secure, role-based email communications, and archiving all materials. The office also develops and delivers training on procedural fairness for decision-makers, publishes resource pages explaining hearing processes, and ensures compliance with the McMaster University Act, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and relevant by-laws.

Across the feedback, a few consistent themes emerge about the Secretariat’s tribunal?hearing function:

Process length and complexity: Many interviewees noted that the process could often take years and that the quasi-judicial format, while intended to ensure fairness, feels overly bureaucratic. Stakeholders want clearer explanations of timelines, decision-making steps, and design rationale so participants understand why hearings follow a legalistic path and how long each stage will take.  It was noted that there may be opportunities to reduce the length and complexity of the process and that these should be actively explored.

Resource constraints and role concentration: Since 2007 all tribunal administration has rested with a single Hearings Manager, who now juggles scheduling, panel management, correspondence, database upkeep, and training. With caseloads at a 15-year high (22 files in 2024–25), additional support is needed to speed up scheduling, case tracking, and documentation.

Technology and tools:  The office has moved from phone calls and faxes to email and online polls for scheduling and built a basic case-tracking database, yet interviewees still point to manual processes – phone follow-ups, fragmented document storage, lack of an integrated case-management system – that slow things down.

Procedural fairness and training: Although the provided training for Associate Deans and decision-makers has been helpful, many suggested more robust, scenario-based workshops for tribunal members, Associate Deans and Department Chairs. Better guidance on evidentiary rules, conflict-of-interest checks, panel roles, and decision-writing would foster confidence in the fairness and consistency of outcomes.  All faculty would benefit from some training on procedural fairness.

Communication and stakeholder support: Participants – particularly students and faculty – often feel intimidated by hearings. They recommended clearer “what-to-expect” guides, dedicated briefing sessions, and simple Q&A materials so that all parties approach hearings with a shared understanding of procedure, rights, and responsibilities.

Leadership and Office of the University Secretary

Across interviews, the Secretariat’s leadership consistently earns high marks for its professionalism, agility, and strategic vision. Under the current University Secretary, the team is praised as “well-run, organized and responsive,” with a “spirit of service” that balances rigorous process with transparency.  Executives uniformly describe feeling “very well supported,” noting the office has become a trusted source of advice. The Secretariat is also seen by stakeholders as providing high quality support for the Board, Senate and now the McMaster Innovation Park.  Interviewees credited the Secretary’s clear planning, sophisticated coordination, and deft handling of sensitive situations for keeping governance processes on track. At the same time, some stakeholders recommended continuing to clearly articulate the Secretariat’s impartial mandate, ensuring that the community understands that it is an unbiased “centre of excellence”.

As noted above, some interviewees observed, including members of the Secretariat itself, that there was some duplication of effort across the team and that consideration should be given to how best to leverage experience and expertise of staff.

Overall, the University Secretary and the Secretariat is well-respected and is both seen and understood to play an important role in the ongoing success of McMaster University.

Concluding Remarks

The review team commends McMaster leadership for commissioning this review and applauds the Secretary for embracing the opportunity for constructive feedback. The team was impressed with the level of detail and rigour in the office reflected in the self-study, and the engagement of all participants. It is clear that all participants are deeply committed to high quality governance at McMaster.

It has been a privilege for the external members of the review team to have had this opportunity to learn more about McMaster University and its governance and contribute a perspective to enhance the work of the Secretariat with a view to leading practices in university governance.