Registrars Helping Registrars: The Success Story of the Bay Area Registrars Group

 

Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” These same words still hold true in the present day workplace, especially in the registrar profession. There are many undeniable advantages to both collaboration and teamwork. This paper will highlight a group of registrar professionals who have come together from numerous institutions to help each other succeed in their jobs, support each other in common goals, and help each other grow in their profession. They call themselves the Bay Area Registrars Group (BARG).

The inaugural BARG meeting took place on January 31, 2008, at Stanford University. The idea originated from the Stanford University Registrar, Thomas Black, who had originally formed a similar gathering of registrars in the Chicago area when he was the University Registrar at the University of Chicago. The initial group was convened to serve many purposes, including discussions of policies and practices across institutions, professional development opportunities, and the sharing of new ideas with colleagues in the registrar profession. This group consists of university registrars, associate registrars, assistant registrars, and other registrar’s office employees from colleges and universities around the San Francisco Bay Area. Many different types of registrar colleagues were invited to attend from both large and small universities representing both public and private, both nonprofit and for-profit, institutions.

There were eighteen institutions invited to be the founding members of BARG (see Chart 1). The group decided at the initial meeting that participants would continue to meet three times a year and rotate the host institution. Since the initial meeting, the group has expanded to include additional institutions in the Bay Area. In many ways this group offers the same advantages and benefits as PACRAO, but on a much smaller scale.

This organizational meeting has evolved significantly over time. At first the agenda and corresponding topics were mostly set forth by the host school. Meetings would typically start out with a friendly breakfast and conversation between fellow registrar professionals. A guest speaker from the host institution would officially kick off the meeting. Examples of past guest speakers include the University Registrar, Chief Financial Officer, Associate Vice President Enrollment Management, and Associate Provost of Enrollment. After the welcome speech, there would be more informal presentations from the host school on topics that had a particular interest to them. Often, a roundtable discussion followed. Lastly, group question and answer sessions would be held as a forum where fellow registrars could discuss policies and procedures at their school and get feedback from other institutions about how they handle similar policies and procedures.

Within the last year the format of these meetings began to change as the host institutions decided to run the meetings in what is commonly referred to as an “Open Space Meeting Format,” or as an “unconference.” This meeting style was introduced to the group by Jeff Aitken from the California Institute of Integral Studies. At the beginning of the BARG meeting, the agenda is created by the actual attendees of the BARG group who suggest topics they wish to lead a discussion on. Three to five breakout sessions are then run concurrently by those attendees who suggested topics. Attendees who are not leading these sessions have the choice to participate in the particular breakout session(s) that is of greatest interest to them. This has been an extremely productive way to run the meetings. Once introduced, it fast became the preferred meeting format of the host institutions.

This gathering of registrars serves as place to get answers to common questions that we all experience in the profession. Robert Bromfield (current BARG member, and Assistant Dean and University Registrar at the University of San Francisco) recently shared his thoughts on the benefits of the BARG group. Robert explained,

BARG and like associations serve as an invaluable repository and source of knowledge and wisdom for the profession and professional practice.  The collective experience of the membership helps inform approaches and solutions to common issues and problems, and can spawn collaborations across member institutions on areas of mutual interest.  Additionally, the camaraderie shared by the membership immeasurably adds to the esprit de corps and provides opportunities for professional development and mentoring.  It has certainly done so for me.

Robert’s thoughts summarize many of the exceptional benefits of this collaborative group and offer insight into why the BARG has been a success.

BARG serves as a learning environment to share ideas and discuss practices that have been successfully implemented at one institution and could benefit others. For example, Suzanne Dmytrenko (current BARG member and University Registrar from San Francisco State) picked up on an idea that Tom Black had mentioned to the group about how the Stanford University Registrar’s Office holds monthly meetings with all of the departmental student services staff across campus. When talking about one example of how the BARG impacted San Francisco State University, Suzanne commented,

While we meet twice a year with our CSU campus registrars, it is very helpful to learn what the UC and private universities are doing.  At one of our Bay Area Registrar’s meetings, Stanford mentioned that they hold monthly meetings with the department staff.  I thought this was a wonderful idea.   We had our first All Department campus meeting in the spring of 2011.  It was a huge success with department staff, associate deans and other administrative department staff attending!  We realized that having an in-person meeting wasn’t just a way for us to provide information, but also a way for the departments to raise issues that we needed to be aware of.

This illustrates the important point that a common practice at one institution might not be something another institution has thought of implementing. However, by getting together and sharing ideas and practices, new successes were achieved.

The BARG has been a great venue not only for sharing and discussing ideas but also for professional development opportunities and networking. Due to the casual environment and comfortable settings, presenting ideas is encouraged and not intimidating. Getting to know fellow registrar colleagues from institutions in the area opens the doors for networking when job postings arise. For example, current Stanford University Degree Progress Specialist Ewa Nowicki has a great example of the power of networking and the BARG. Ewa explains, I was a member of AACRAO for a few years at my last institution. Via AACRAO I heard about a mentoring program, and I contacted the headquarters in DC to be paired with someone in the Bay Area. That is how I met Suzanne Dmytrenko, who showed me around her school, introduced me to other colleagues, and suggested that I join BARG. BARG was a great network for me as a new person to the Bay Area (at my last position) and then when I joined the BARG meetings, I met some wonderful people from Stanford! About a year or so after that meeting, I then interviewed with some of the people that I met at a BARG meeting, and that is how I met my current boss and came to work at Stanford.

This is an example of how the BARG holds the potential to help members with networking opportunities, makes connections, and helps institutions get qualified well rounded applicants.

Stanford University Associate Registrar, Celeste Nguyen, has also found the BARG group useful for making connections. Celeste commented, “BARG has introduced me to all the local registrars, so now when I go to conferences like PACRAO, I have many BARG colleagues to connect with.” This is one of the advantages of a group like BARG.  It offers a smaller casual environment to get to know friendly colleagues, which helps to spark conversations at larger conferences that might not have occurred if the comfort level had not been established through the BARG connection.

Another great benefit from the BARG was the creation of a member-only email list. Group members use this email list for posting registrar related job openings, bouncing ideas off one another, discussing policies, and getting clarification on how others handle common situations. It is most commonly used by members who want to gather feedback from other institutions on how they handle specific policies and procedures. Fellow registrar professionals weigh in on practices and policies at their institutions. Fellow BARG member Marianne Stickel (University Registrar and Assistant Vice President for Academic Services from Dominican University of California) recently described the value of the group email list for her, “The e-mail group has also been a great way for me to float a question when I am in need of some ideas, advice, or policy samples from local colleagues.” Marianne continues, “I have found that people tend to reply when they have something substantial to add, and that makes the exchange really worthwhile.”

While it is sometimes difficult to accommodate the different academic calendars to find an ideal meeting date, BARG meetings are held when a majority of the institutions can attend. The dates are set after each meeting and the group meets one time in the summer, autumn, and spring. At the end of each meeting, volunteers are solicited for hosting the next gathering. This has been a great opportunity for the host school to showcase their institution. It is also a wonderful experience for the attendees to get to know the different types of schools in the area and learn how about their operations. For example, numerous schools have offered tours of their “one stop shop” or “student services center” where students receive services from many different offices all in one location. It has been informative to see the different approaches to running and operating a student center. These host campus tours have given attendees a chance to get to see many diverse institutions and campuses. From a city campus like San Jose State, to “the Farm” at Stanford University, through the hills in UC Berkeley, or by the sea at CSU Monterey Bay, each campus shines in its own unique way.

The Bay Area Registrar’s Group has been a success story and no doubt will continue to grow and evolve in future meetings. It has proven to be a truly collaborative effort helping like- minded registrar professionals get answers to common institutional questions and policies, showcase new ideas, grow professionally, establish connections, develop friendships, and showcase different institutions. This idea could catch on in other regions, in which registrars or admissions professionals could gather and discuss common and not-so-common challenges and ideas that arise in their profession. As Henry Ford said, “Working together is success.” There is no doubt the collaborative success of the Bay Area Registrars Group can be duplicated in other geographical regions.

by Reid Kallman, Associate University Registrar, Stanford University


Reid Kallman is currently the Associate University Registrar for Academic Records and the NCAA Certification Officer at Stanford University. He has worked in the Registrar’s Office at Stanford University for the past nine years. Reid holds a bachelors degree in Communication Studies from the University of Michigan. Reid is originally from Haslett, Michigan.


 

 

 

Humanizing Degree Audit Systems from Start to Finish

The degree audit reporting system, or DARS, as it is called in many campuses, is a system that identifies the completion status of degree requirements for individual students.  Based on an analysis of enrollment data and degree requirements, this system identifies degree requirements that students have satisfied and the classes they still need to complete to earn their degrees.  Utilized primarily as an electronic advisement tool for academic advisors and students, DARS can also be used to identify students nearing the completion of their graduation requirements.  Several campuses in the California State University system have started to use or, explore ways to use DARS to identify students who are within a term or two from graduation.  For the purpose of ensuring their timely graduation, these students are provided priority registration.  If fully implemented, this system can be utilized beyond academic advisement.  It has the capacity to facilitate graduation and can be used as an enrollment management tool.

Although the DARS technology has been around for approximately two decades,

many universities continue to struggle with fully implementing this technology.  Why is this?  For one, DARS implementations involve several major campus constituents, including advisors, students, and staff members who are involved with conferring students their degrees.  Engagement of all these campus constituents is a requirement for any successful DARS project.  Based on my experiences from two DARS implementations, campus constituents must be included in the discussions about the project from the moment the decision to implement the technology is made.

Determine carefully the scope and order of implementation

The first question to ask at the outset of the project is:  Will the degree audit reports be made available for undergraduate programs all at once or will the project be implemented in phases?  In deciding the scope of the project and in determining whether implementation would be conducted in phases or all at once, project teams and administrators overseeing DARS projects must be mindful of their campus climate and possible political ramifications of their decisions.  Is there a ‘pecking order’ that must be followed when determining which college goes first?  Stakeholders in the form of college deans and other similar ‘power brokers’ must be agreeable to the order in which this electronic advisement tool will be developed and made available for their majors.  Obtaining ‘buy in’ from these stakeholders is a critical element of this stage of the project.

Humanize the degree audit reports

After the scope of the project has been determined, it is important to meet with department chairs and academic advisors.  As prospective users of DARS, spending time with them to describe how the system works and what benefits it will provide academic advisement will promote its acceptance among the advisement community.  Also, discussions with these users while the degree audit reports are in development may reveal some idiosyncrasies in advising that will not be discovered otherwise.  For example, are there certain implied rules that should be included in the reports?  Are there certain instructions that advisors pass on to students that can be incorporated?   Incorporating language that is routinely used in advising sessions in the reports not only makes it more appealing to advisors, it also humanizes this electronic advisement tool that would otherwise be a mere cold list of degree requirements.  As such, the reports will be more effective in providing guidance to students.

To further humanize this electronic

advisement tool, DARS implementation teams should consider conducting a strong communication campaign about the project.  DARS team members should attend meetings with prospective users, conduct workshops and make presentations.  Making public appearances puts a face to the technology, which then provides the campus community a sense of comfort in knowing that they can speak with someone when they have concerns about the new advisement tool.

Build an infrastructure to receive and collect feedback

With each new technology, it is inevitable that end-users will find glitches, errors or omissions after the “go live” date.   Nothing can be more frustrating for an end-user than to be using a new product for the first time and not knowing how and to whom feedback should be submitted.  It is therefore critical that DARS implementation teams develop early on an infrastructure to receive feedback on the degree audit reports.  For example, a website about the project, which includes certain online forms that can be used to submit questions or comments about the reports, should be developed before releasing the degree audit reports to the campus community.

It is also important that the effectiveness and accuracy of the degree audit reports is assessed several times after this new technology has been launched on campus.  Conduct online surveys to seek feedback on its use and accuracy.  Any weakness found in the reports should be worked on immediately to avoid any deterioration in the perception of the utility of the degree audit reports.

Look at other areas to address staffing issues

Another challenge with full implementation of the degree audit reporting system is the requirement that campuses have the capacity to be able to incorporate student-specific course lists or deviations in curricular requirements.  For example, there are programs of study that include “advisor- approved electives.”   The approval process involving these curricular requirements prevent campus DARS encoders from being able to hard-code these requirements.  To be able to incorporate student-specific degree requirements into the degree audit reports entails developing a process that moves information from the approvers to those who will encode the approvals into the system.  Academic advisors, already existing in the university, typically serve as the approvers.  However, who will encode the approvals?  Thus, the question of staffing emerges as a significant challenge in this aspect of DARS implementations.

To help address this human resource

question, administrators should take a look at other areas of enrollment services that may have been made more efficient by the employment of new technologies.  For example, electronic transcripts, online registration and grading processes may have decreased the required staffing for these enrollment services that were once manually performed.  Could these areas be potential sources of staffing for these new DARS needs?  Is there a possibility that some staff members might be re-trained to encode student-specific approved petitions?  Administrators may find that shifting human resources in enrollment services from one area to another will help the campus utilize the degree audit system more fully.

 

Conclusion

A common thread that runs through the challenges in implementing degree audit reporting system is the human element.   From the point of determining the scope of the project, to receiving feedback from end-users, to creatively looking into ways to ensure that adequate workforce available to encode student-specific curricular requirements, involve building positive relationships with stakeholders of this new technology.  Although the degree audit reporting system is designed to automate academic advising, and at later points, assist in enrollment management and facilitate graduation, this technology requires a great deal of human interaction to work efficiently and effectively.   Administrators looking to either start a DARS project or expand an existing one on their campuses must start with the basic element of administration—nurturing relationships.  For the obvious reason that we exist in enrollment services to support students, any technological advancement we decide to employ must always be accompanied by the human touch that propelled us in the first place to join this profession.

by Maria L. Martinez, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

 


Maria L. Martinez is a member of the Division of Student Affairs at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona as University Registrar. She led the successful development and implementation of the degree audit reporting system at her current campus as well as at California State University, Fullerton where she was a DARS Coordinator.  Maria has been with the California State University system for 24 years.  She has a Master’s of Public Administration degree from California State University, Fullerton and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Education at Chapman University in Orange, California.


 

A Quality Hiring Process in Admissions and Registrars Offices, Part 1

Making a quality hire is a critical success factor for managers everywhere.  In the Office of the Registrar and the Office of Admission, the positional skills and needs are quite different, so knowing what to hire for and how to discern a solid fit for both skills and qualities are as vital as determining cultural fit.  This two part series will explore the critical success factors of articulating the position, setting up a successful interview process, and closing the deal.  The focus of this article is on determining the needs of a position and narrowing the candidate pool.

The first part of planning is to carefully articulate what is needed for success.  When writing a job description, consider the job functions and skills needed, and articulate several role functions and tasks.  Additionally, note the qualities that make for success.  This holistic role description helps give a prospective candidate an overall generalized sense of the work at hand and, if written well, it will provide areas of special emphasis and skills of particular importance.  Many people write good holistic job descriptions, but few go the extra mile to provide the areas of special emphasis and skills of particular importance. Articulating the critical success factors will help the candidate both assess skills and knowledge for fit, and will help him or her better prepare for a strong interview.

Consider an Admission Counselor role.  This is a role that requires a lot of interpersonal contact, so it is important to find a candidate who naturally characterizes aspects of an institution in a positive light and possesses charisma.  For selective schools, it may also be important to employ someone who can compassionately but clearly deliver bad news or help set expectations for hopeful prospects.  In addition, the ideal candidate may need to be on the road at high school or college fairs for much of the fall season.  This requires someone who is energized by meeting new people, positive and charismatic, able to deliver bad news with grace, and wants to be on the road for what could be twenty percent or more of the time.

In the Office of the Registrar, a common role is that of Credit Evaluator or Graduation Specialist.  For this type of position, an ability to understand and explain academic policy is important.  Someone who is articulate and professional in both written and verbal communication is ideal.  The successful candidate can properly advise about exception handling, showing balance between policy adherence and individual circumstances.  The person who enjoys a deep dive into policy and process, can flexibly guide students, advisors and faculty to a strong course of action, and is a capable written and verbal communicator is a very different candidate than the one in the Admission Counselor role.

In addition to the skills and knowledge you need for success, it is helpful to look at the institution and office culture to assess what is unique.  For small institutions, someone who enjoys being a utility player is likely a valuable consideration.  A utility player is one who is thrives on developing skills and knowledge in a variety of areas, and is eager to shift from one function to another to ensure business continuity.  If an Admission Counselor is expected to answer phones when the administrative support is out, and to also open and process mail during application crunch time, then it is important to be clear up front about the culture of cross-training and support that is promoted.  Similarly, if the Office of the Registrar at an institution has been moved from reporting to the Provost to reporting to the Vice President of Enrollment Management and is soon to be moved to the Dean of Academic Affairs, the degree of political ambiguity the staff must manage may be quite high.  Make sure to consider how sensitive each candidate is for success in this environment and make sure that aspect is built into what to articulate when hiring.

After assessing the critical success factors included in a strong job description or advertisement, shop this description around to others who have close engagement with the role and your office.  Ask for feedback.  With additional views of the critical success factors, come up with a short paragraph that has broad a support of what to focus on when assessing candidates.  Include this as a part of your published job description.

Below is a critical success factors description from an opening for a Registration Representative position in the Office of the Registrar at Seattle University. This position is situated on a strong self-directed team of three who share administrative functions and engage heavily with two student workers, and serve a broad range of customers.

The ideal Registration Representative candidate will demonstrate professional writing and interpersonal skills, strong attention to detail, and is able to communicate policy and practice with both competence and confidence.  A successful candidate thrives serving a diverse customer base and additionally uses considered judgment in applying policy and articulating the philosophy underlying those policies.  The ideal candidate enjoys working both as a part of a self-directed team and alone in concentrated work to process paper registration exception requests.

The next step in the hiring process is to narrow the pool by screening candidates for these critical success factors.  Using the critical success factors paragraph as a guide, screen the applicant pool for viable candidates.  Safety is finding someone who has done exactly what is required of the role somewhere else.  Savvy or daring is finding a good fit based upon similar but divergent experience or a trajectory that shows strong growth potential.  To surface critical success factors in candidates with divergent experience, the first step is to assess the resume and cover letter for evidence of role and culture fit.  Someone who has provided customer service and has processed billing for a small medical office might be an ideal candidate for an entry level job in the Office of the Registrar.  Dealing with a diverse population, an ability to work independently and applying rules in their day-to-day work is highly likely.  Someone with a sales or marketing background might be a good fit for an Admission Counselor role.  In sales and marketing roles, an employee may have had to travel extensively, would be required to meet new people regularly and develop positive rapport and will generally be a positive, upbeat, and perhaps very charismatic person.

A candidate pool of 60+ may yield eight or more possible candidates to explore further.  This is good.  After a review of only what someone has put to paper, expect the pool to be somewhat large.  At this stage, to narrow the pool to only those to bring to campus for an in-person interview, employ a telephone screen interview.  A good telephone screen will provide some sense of how the individual embodies some of your critical success factors, but not all of them.  Consider a telephone call of around 30 minutes and include the search team in the interview.  The content of the call should start with a greeting, brief introductions, a warm up question, time for your critical questions, and then a time for the candidate to ask you any questions he or she might have.  On this call, assign roles and questions to others.  Each person’s assignment should be clear and no more than one person should speak at any given time.  The greeting, introductions and warm up is targeted at putting the candidate at ease, enabling the candidate to show well.  To do this, the hiring manager or search leader thanks the candidate for their time and outlines the content of the call.  After this each person introduces themselves giving his or her name and job role.  Ask if there are any process questions before  launching into the remainder of the call.  Start then with a warm up question, something easy, but informative.  For example, ask the candidate to take no more than three minutes to provide a deeper dive into the resume, focusing on the key roles and functions they engaged in that best showcase their fit for the role as they understand it.  From this question the interview team can learn  how well the candidate understands the job description, how they communicate and whether or not they can edit their content for the question and time offered.   Follow this opening with two or three critical questions that help narrow the candidate pool. These questions should be solid requests for evidence of past performance and capacity as well as those which provide insight into cultural fit.  With no more than five minutes remaining, thank them for responding and allow them an opportunity to ask you questions.  What is important in this process is to stay within the timeframe set at the outset of the call.  If the candidate rambles, help them move along during the call.

Because over the phone communication is not as good as face to face, lacking the visual cues to gauge impact, it is important to focus on deep listening and to interject listening sounds such as “right” and “yes” and “that makes sense, go on.”  At the end of the call, thank the candidate and reiterate the process and timing for follow up.

In order for teams to engage in a clear and fair candidate evaluation, engage the interview team to develop a feedback sheet.  This will help focus the conversation to determine whether or not each candidate is viable for an onsite interview invitation.  Here is a template for a feedback sheet to be customized with appropriate content:

  • Candidate Name: _________________________
  • Interview Team Member Name: ______________
  • Quality/Skill #1:   High   Medium    Low
  • Notes: __________________________________
  • Quality/Skill #2:   High   Medium    Low
  • Notes: __________________________________
  • Quality/Skill #3:   High   Medium    Low
  • Notes: __________________________________
  • Recommend candidate for campus interview:   Yes  No
  • Summary reflection:

 

Determine the number of candidates to bring to campus and narrow your pool accordingly.  Pay particular attention during the debrief process to whether or not those invited to campus differ appreciably from those who are not invited.  If there is not logic of the differentiation, more discernment may be needed.  It may be that the candidates invited in express a critical success factor or suite of factors that are clearly more important than the areas in which they have gaps or lesser skills.   Paying attention to these nuances will help further guide and structure the campus interview process.

Call each and every phone-screened candidate to deliver the news, either good or bad.  First, thank each candidate for his or her time.  Next, confirm continued interest from candidates you select to invite to campus and if interest is affirmed, communicate planning steps and timing for travel.  For candidates who are not moving ahead in the process, clearly and firmly articulate they are not moving to the next phase of the process.  Outline a key strength the committee noted during its review of the pool.  Wish the candidate well as they further their pursuits elsewhere.  Thank them again for the time and effort they put into the process and conclude the call.  This common courtesy can make the difference between a perceived positive experience with your institution and a negative one.  Remember that every touch is a marketing function of the institution, even with unsuccessful candidates.

The next step in the hiring process is preparing for and conducting the campus interview.  This process will be covered  along with more information on making the offer and closing the deal in the second installment of this two part article.

 by Joyce Allen, Seattle University

 


Joyce Allen is PACRAO’s Vice President of Publications and Information Technology.  She is employed as the University Registrar and Director of Enrollment Operations at Seattle University where she finds successful hiring to be a critical success factor in her role.  She has over 20 years of experience with hiring both in higher education and in the high tech industry.


 

 

PACRAO Review: Recommended Articles

  1. Service Blueprinting: Transforming the Student Experience
    By Mary Jo Bitner, Amy Ostrom and Kevin Burkhard
    EDUCAUSE Review
    Published November 1, 2012

    • Using a service lens to view higher education and focus on the student experience as a way of creating value for stakeholders and improving the existing services that can transform higher education
  2. E-Content: Opportunity and Risk
    By Shelton Waggener
    EDUCAUSE Review
    Published September 5, 2012

    • Exploring the risks, challenges, opportunities, and best practices associated with e-content
  3. Finding the Right One: Mobile Technology in Higher Education
    By Chris Dixon
    EDUCAUSE Review
    Published November 1, 2012

    • Senior leaders at Lancaster University realized they had a negligible presence on mobile devices and that the rapidly increasing number of smartphones on campus could not be used to access university services. This article details how they went about finding the most appropriate mobile technology for the institution’s mobile needs.

Selected by Taya Winter, Information Technology Specialist, Western Washington University

PACRAO Review March 2013 Edition

Welcome to PACRAO Review Volume 3, Number 1

                         Download Entire Issue: PACRAO Review March 2013

This article highlights a group of registrar professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area called the Bay Area Registrars Group. This group was formed by numerous institutions to help each other succeed in their jobs, support each other in common goals, and promote professional growth. Insights and experiences from actual Bay Area Registrar Group members help to tell the success story.

 

The degree audit reporting system is an electronic advising tool that provides information on the completion of students’ degree requirements.  Successful implementation of this technology in universities requires the engagement of major campus constituents. This article provides insight on important steps and considerations that administrators and implementation teams must take to enhance the success of the technology on their campuses.

 

In the Office of the Registrar and the Office of Admission, the skills and needs for new hires are quite different, so knowing what to hire for and how to discern a solid fit for both skills and qualities are as vital as determining cultural fit.  This article presents a process for quality hiring in admissions and registrars offices.

 

PACRAO has arranged to provide hyperlink access to articles published by EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology. All hyperlinked articles have been reviewed for relevance and value by the PACRAO Editorial Review Board for the benefit of our constituents.