Advocacy Review Process
Once a committee reaches a consensus on a draft, the committee chair submits the draft to the Review Process Manager, i.e., the External Affairs staff in charge of advocacy documents.
Advocacy Review Process
Advocacy Review Process
- ACCJ Staff Review: The Review Process Manager handles the review process and works with the Communications Department to ensure that the draft’s structure is consistent with other viewpoints and that its tone is appropriate and its meaning clear. If the Communications Department recommends only minor edits, the Review Process Manager will accept the revisions on the committee chair’s behalf and take the viewpoint to the next stage of the approval process. If the Communications Department recommends substantial edits, the Viewpoint Process Manager will submit the edited draft to the committee chair and explain the changes being suggested.
- BOG and EAAC Review: Once the External Affairs and Communications Departments have reviewed the document, the document is submited to the Board of Governors (BOG) and the External Affairs Advisory Council (EAAC) for content review. Please see below for an overview of the typical process.
5-Day Review Period for Documents Under 1,400 Words
The Review Process Manager submits the draft simultaneously to the BOG for a three-working-day review and to the EAAC for a five-working-day review. As a matter of procedure, the BOG delegates document review to the EAAC. However, individual BOG members are given three working days during the EAAC review period to:
The EAAC has five working days to review the viewpoint. At the end of this period, the EAAC may:
The Review Process Manager submits the draft simultaneously to the BOG for a three-working-day review and to the EAAC for a five-working-day review. As a matter of procedure, the BOG delegates document review to the EAAC. However, individual BOG members are given three working days during the EAAC review period to:
- Submit comments or questions for EAAC consideration
- Participate in any EAAC discussion on the viewpoint (via teleconference, email, in person, meeting, etc.)
- Request a formal review by the BOG, which will be performed if another BOG member seconds the request
The EAAC has five working days to review the viewpoint. At the end of this period, the EAAC may:
- Approve the viewpoint as is
- Approve the viewpoint with minor revisions (in which case the EAAC does not review the revised version before dissemination)
- Request substantial revisions (in which case the committee must revise the viewpoint and submit the revised draft to the EAAC for a three-working-day review period)
- Request a formal review by the BOG (if substantial revisions are requested, the committee must revise the viewpoint and submit the revised draft to the BOG for a three-working-day review period)
10-Day Review Period for Documents Over 1,400 Words
ACCJ advocacy documents should be short and to the point. As a matter of ACCJ policy, viewpoints should be under 1,400 words. However, occasionally, more lengthy explanations are needed to effectively present an advocacy argument. In such a case, specifically when an advocacy document exceeds 1,400 words and is less than 3,000 words, a ten-working day review period will be required. In urgent cases, committee leaders may issue special requests to the EAAC for an expedited review period; as a general rule, however, ten-working days will be required for documents over 1,400 words.
Once the viewpoint is approved, the Review Process Manager works with the committee chair(s) to finalize the dissemination strategy.
ACCJ advocacy documents should be short and to the point. As a matter of ACCJ policy, viewpoints should be under 1,400 words. However, occasionally, more lengthy explanations are needed to effectively present an advocacy argument. In such a case, specifically when an advocacy document exceeds 1,400 words and is less than 3,000 words, a ten-working day review period will be required. In urgent cases, committee leaders may issue special requests to the EAAC for an expedited review period; as a general rule, however, ten-working days will be required for documents over 1,400 words.
Once the viewpoint is approved, the Review Process Manager works with the committee chair(s) to finalize the dissemination strategy.
Translations
Advocacy documents should be translated into Japanese before being released. The issuing committee is responsible for providing a Japanese translation of the viewpoint. The issuing committee can wait for approval of an English-language draft before beginning to prepare the Japanese translation. However, it is highly recommended to have a translation ready for adjustment and quick finalization upon approval of the English language draft. The Review Process Manager will work with the committee chair and other ACCJ staff to ensure the accuracy of the translations. Translations are considered “unofficial” documents, and official approval is not required. If a committee is unable to arrange for a translation, the Review Process Manager can facilitate outsourcing, with the costs borne by the committee. The committee chair will decide how the cost/work burden will be shared among committee members.
In the vast majority of cases, the committee must pay the translation costs. In special cases where the EAAC agrees that a viewpoint addresses an issue that affects the interests of the ACCJ membership as a whole, rather than those of a specific committee or committees, the ACCJ will cover the translation costs.
In the vast majority of cases, the committee must pay the translation costs. In special cases where the EAAC agrees that a viewpoint addresses an issue that affects the interests of the ACCJ membership as a whole, rather than those of a specific committee or committees, the ACCJ will cover the translation costs.
Validity Periods
White Papers: Three-Year Sunset Rule
A three-year sunset rule for white papers is in effect to ensure that the ACCJ’s advocacy positions remain relevant, particularly since such documents are often the basis on which new advocacy positions are approved. At the end of the three-year period, the issuing committee or committees will have the option to renew the document for an additional one-year period by resubmitting it to the EAAC to confirm the document is still consistent with the ACCJ Core Advocacy Principles. All expired positions will be removed from the ACCJ’s public website upon expiration.
Viewpoints and Public Comments: One-Year Validity
Viewpoints and the public comments issued by the ACCJ will remain valid for one year from the date of approval. The issuing committee or committees that wish to renew a viewpoints should review the contents and resubmit it to the EAAC to determine if additional review is necessary. All expired positions will be removed from the ACCJ’s public website upon expiration.
A three-year sunset rule for white papers is in effect to ensure that the ACCJ’s advocacy positions remain relevant, particularly since such documents are often the basis on which new advocacy positions are approved. At the end of the three-year period, the issuing committee or committees will have the option to renew the document for an additional one-year period by resubmitting it to the EAAC to confirm the document is still consistent with the ACCJ Core Advocacy Principles. All expired positions will be removed from the ACCJ’s public website upon expiration.
Viewpoints and Public Comments: One-Year Validity
Viewpoints and the public comments issued by the ACCJ will remain valid for one year from the date of approval. The issuing committee or committees that wish to renew a viewpoints should review the contents and resubmit it to the EAAC to determine if additional review is necessary. All expired positions will be removed from the ACCJ’s public website upon expiration.
