Senate Policy Framework
To establish a framework for Senate policies that supports the mission, vision, and values of Ryerson University (the “University”) as described in the Ryerson University Act and the University Academic Plan.
2. Application and Scope
Applies to all University policies subject to the approval of the University’s Senate. It does not apply to administrative policies.
Definitions must be provided in policies where the words are uncommon or have a specific meaning in that policy.
NOTE: Definitions applicable to all Senate policies can be found in the Senate Bylaws or the Glossary in Senate Policy #2: Undergraduate Curriculum Structure.
The following definitions apply to the drafting, revising, approving, consolidating, and retiring of Senate policies.
3.1. Academic Policy
A Senate Policy (see below).
3.2. Contact Person
The person to be contacted with any queries related to the policy or procedures.
General statements, recommendations, administrative instructions, best practices or interpretation of policy or procedures to assist users in carrying out the mandatory processes stipulated in a policy’s procedures.
A formal statement of principle or a plan that reflects the University’s values, goals, expectations or desired results related to an area under the purview of Senate. NOTE: Policy determines WHAT is to be achieved; procedures determine HOW it is to be achieved.
3.5. Policy Consolidation
The process of redrafting and consolidating into one policy a number of policies that address the same issue or subject matter, or are otherwise duplicative.
3.6. Policy Reconciliation
The process of ensuring policy statements do not conflict and that policy duplication is minimized.
The appropriate and necessary steps required to comply with the policy.
NOTE: Policy determines WHAT is to be achieved; procedures determine HOW it is to be achieved.
3.8. Policy Review
The process undertaken to evaluate whether the stipulated purpose of the policy is still relevant and satisfied by the policy.
3.9. Policy Retirement
The process for bringing to an end the application of a policy.
3.10. Policy Update
The process for making minor amendments to a policy to reflect a change that has taken place in the University, legislation or government directives and policy.
3.11. Procedures Review
The process undertaken to evaluate whether the stipulated procedures are still relevant and satisfactory to fulfill the requirements of the policy.
3.12. Procedures Update
The process for making minor amendments to a procedure to reflect a change that has taken place in the University, legislation or government directives and policy, or process adjustment needed to carry out the requirements of the policy.
3.13. Responsible Office
The office responsible for administering or applying the policy.
3.14. Review Date
The date before which a review of the policy or procedure must commence. A Review Date will be no more that 5 years from the completion of the last Policy Review or approval by Senate of the last Policy Update.
3.15. Senate Policy
A policy that requires the approval of Senate. Senate policies relate to the academic aspects of the University and are sometimes referred to as Academic Policies.
4. Values and Principles
*The quotes below have been taken from the University’s 2015-2019 Academic Plan. Future versions of this Framework may need to be updated as the Academic Plan is updated.
4.1. People First
“The University is committed to the success of its students, faculty and staff by creating a safe, secure and healthy environment that puts people first, is supportive of the whole person and enhances the development of physical, mental and spiritual well-being.”
This value can be seen as a general introduction or preamble for academic policies; it acts like a general guideline when interpretation of policy is needed.
The principles guiding academic policies have been organized as Substantive, Operational or General in the following categories. Many of these principles need to be operationalized in Senate policies and procedures.
4.2. Substantive Principles
4.2.1. Academic excellence: “The University strives for the highest standards in its programs, teaching and learning........ ”
Academic policies should aim to ensure that standards of excellence are promoted and upheld and that the student learning experience is based on the sharing of knowledge, expertise, skills, and perspectives.
4.2.2. Integrity: “The University expects students, faculty and staff to act in accord with the highest standards of conduct................ ”
The University is committed to ensure the integrity of academic standards and records and that these records are a credible reflection of students’ academic abilities and accomplishments. The integrity of academic standards and records is important for all stakeholders, including students, faculty, and external stakeholders such as prospective employers, government, donors, and other academic institutions.
4.2.3. Equity: “The University values the fair and just treatment of all community members through the creation of opportunities and the removal of barriers to address historic and current disadvantages for under-represented and marginalized groups.”
It is important to distinguish between equity and equality and to dispel the belief that fairness means treating everyone in exactly the same way (equality). We need to encourage the understanding that people in different circumstances often require different treatment (equity); that this equitable treatment is what leads to equal access to opportunity and success; and that while both equality and equity are related to fairness, equity is about being fair by taking differential circumstances into account.
4.2.4. Diversity: “The University values and respects diversity of knowledge, worldviews and experiences that come from membership in different groups and the contribution that diversity makes to the learning, teaching, research and work environment.”
Academic policies need to be reflective of the diversity of our faculty and students – reflective of both teaching and learning styles and of backgrounds and circumstances.
4.2.5. Flexibility: Flexibility by design, rather than generic flexibility is required. It is by design because flexibility that results in a laissez faire environment or an environment where inconsistency becomes the norm, is not what is desired. Rather, acknowledging that there can be multiple routes to academic excellence and rigor, the University requires flexibility by design that leads to fair and equitable process and outcomes, and therefore supports and augments academic excellence. The University wants flexibility by design that supports and augments the rigorous, transparent, defensible and fair use of discretion by decision-makers. And the University wants flexibility by design that enables a balancing of the, sometimes competing, needs and responsibilities of both faculty and students
4.3. Operational Principles
4.3.1. Procedural Justice and Fairness: Perhaps the most basic operational principle is that policy and procedure should reflect procedural justice and fairness, which, in turn, involves:
4.3.2. Clarity: Policy and procedures should be clear, easy to understand, implement, and navigate, written in plain language and presented in a way that promotes clear communication.
188.8.131.52. Transparency: Academic policies and the decisions derived from them should be transparent; all stakeholders involved or interacting with the policy should be able to see and understand what actions are being performed and why, and see and understand how and why outcomes are arrived at, and decisions are made.
184.108.40.206. The right to be heard: Policy should ensure that there is opportunity to present one’s case and to make arguments for one’s case before decisions are made.
220.127.116.11. Timeliness: Processes should be both timely and include practical timelines.
18.104.22.168. Consistency: Within a framework of equity and flexibility by design policy should support and advance consistency of rules and procedures, and their application.
4.3.3. Collaborative: Policy should promote a collaborative approach in which informal resolution and problem-solving are encouraged; this collaborative approach should involve mutuality and respect.
4.3.4. Accountable: Policy should provide rules and processes that promote the acceptance of both rights and responsibilities that, therefore, lead to accountability and hold all parties answerable for their actions.
4.3.5. Educational: A central value motivating policy is to provide the best possible educational environment and policy itself should provide for the principles, rules, and practices involved in policy being well taught and well known and understood by all stakeholders.
4.4. General Principles
A policy should:
4.4.1. contain focused statements of the University’s intent, governing principles or desired results related to the subject;
4.4.2. include use of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy Lens, included as an Appendix to the Procedures;
4.4.3. be developed and reviewed through a consultation process;
4.4.4. be reviewed on a regular basis;
4.4.5. give substance to the University’s mission, vision, and values statements and the Academic Plan;
4.4.6. comply with legislation, government directives, and policy requirements;
4.4.7. provide a basis for communicating operational expectations;
4.4.8. specify the person/office to be contacted if queries related to the policy or procedures arise.
5. Roles and Responsibilities
5.1. Academic Governance and Policy Committee (AGPC) is responsible for:
5.1.1. proposing, overseeing, and periodically reviewing Senate bylaws, policies, and University procedures regarding any matter within the purview of Senate, except those matters for which responsibility is specifically assigned, to the SRCAC;
5.1.2. recommending to Senate the establishment of Policy Review Committees, each mandated by Senate to undertake a periodic review or special review of an existing policy or policy area;
5.1.3. proposing new Senate policy in areas when and where the absence of policy is demonstrably necessary or prudent, and to propose, when advisable, the formation of a Policy Development Committee to draft such policies;
5.1.4. requesting reports from other University committees, sub-committees or departments whose business has an academic policy dimension, or a substantial effect on the academic mandate or performance of the University;
5.2. Policy Development Committee (ad hoc) is responsible for:
drafting new policies in areas when and where the absence of policy is demonstrably necessary or prudent as determined and mandated by AGPC.
5.3. Policy Review Committee (ad hoc) is responsible for:
undertaking a periodic review or special review of an existing policy or policy area, as mandated by Senate;
5.4. Scholarly Research and Creative Activity Committee (SRCAC) is responsible for:
5.4.1. recommending to Senate, when necessary, the establishment of policies to promote, support, and regulate SRC activity involving the University, and to review any such existing policies;
5.4.2. initiating periodic review of the terms of reference and policies governing the Research Ethics Board by establishing a Review Committee and bringing proposed changes in such policies forward to Senate for approval.
5.5. Responsible Office is responsible for:
5.5.1. ensuring the content of policies and procedures is up-to-date and valid with respect to the stipulated purpose of the policy;
5.5.2. interpreting policies and procedures;
5.5.3. regularly reviewing policies and procedures, which includes reconciliation of the Responsible Office’s policies and procedures where applicable;
5.5.4. ensuring coordination of policies within the Responsible Office’s area of responsibility.
5.6. Secretary of Senate is responsible for managing Senate policies, including:
5.6.1. assisting with development, drafting, legal review, consolidation, and retirement of policies;
5.6.2. identifying policy gaps;
5.6.3. coordinating requests for legal advice related to the drafting, revising, approving, consolidating, and retiring of Senate policies;
5.6.4. overseeing and providing advice on Senate policies and procedures, including the appropriate process to be followed for drafting, revising, approving, consolidating, and retiring of Senate policies and procedures;
5.6.5. referring inquiries about specific policies to the Responsible Office or Contact Person;
5.6.6. maintaining a directory of the current policies and procedures of Senate on the Senate website;
5.6.7. maintaining an Archive of retired Senate policies;
5.6.8. managing the Policy Review process to ensure that Senate policies are reviewed by the stipulated Review Date, or reporting to Senate reasons for scheduled reviews not occurring;
5.6.9. developing and overseeing processes for informing the University community about policies being developed, reviewed, consolidated, retired, and policies that have been approved;
5.6.10. undertaking any other policy management administration that is required.
6. Distribution and Communication
All Senate policies are posted on the Senate website. The version posted on this website is the official version.
The procedures for drafting, revising, approving, consolidating, and retiring Senate
policies and procedures can be found in the following Senate Policy Framework Procedures and in the attached Policy Template.
Senate Policy Framework - Procedures
The Ryerson University Senate Policy Framework Procedures (the “Procedures”) establishes the processes by which Senate policies and procedures are developed, reviewed, updated, approved, consolidated, and retired.
1. Policy Review Determination
1.1 All policies (and their related procedures) must be reviewed every 5 years, or sooner if requested by the Responsible Office, AGPC or Senate. The review is to commence within 5 years of last review or update.
1.2 The Secretary of Senate will prepare a list of all policies within the purview of AGPC that are due for review in the coming year and present it to AGPC. AGPC will consult with the Responsible Office for each policy on the list to ascertain if it is up-to-date, meeting its purpose, and that the Procedures are an accurate reflection of what is actually occurring, or if a Policy Review Committee should be established.
1.3 If AGPC determines that a review is NOT necessary, a new review date will be determined, and Senate will be informed.
1.4 If AGPC determines that a review IS necessary, a Policy Review Committee (PRC) will be established.
2. Policy Review Process
2.1 If a PRC is required, the Responsible Office for that policy will recommend to AGPC the membership of the PRC, including a recommended number of people to ensure an effective, efficient, and timely process, and including whether the PRC Chair will be the Responsible Office, a designate from the Responsible Office, an AGPC member or other appropriate person.
2.2 At least one member of the PRC will be a liaison from AGPC, nominated by AGPC.
2.3 The Responsible Office may identify Resource People whose expertise may be required for the deliberations of the PRC. Resource People will not be required to attend all meetings of the PRC, but may be consulted by the Committee or invited to those meetings when their expertise is required
2.4 Policy Review Committees will normally report to AGPC in order to ensure that appropriate coordination with other existing policies occurs, but AGPC may direct that a PRC report directly to Senate.
2.5 The PRC will gather feedback from the Responsible Office, related offices, and community stakeholders to identify policy gaps or needs (which may include recommendations for policy reconciliation and/or policy retirement). They may request support as described in the Policy, including but not limited to requesting legal advice, drafting and research assistance, and advice from the Office of the Vice President Equity and Community Inclusion.
3. Policy Development Process
3.1 Part of AGPC’s mandate is “To propose new Senate policy in areas when and where the absence of policy is demonstrably necessary or prudent, and to propose, when advisable, the formation of a special task force or sub- committee to draft such policies.”
3.2 Such Policy Development Committees will be created following the same principles that guide the formation of Policy Review Committees.
4. Incidental Amendments
4.1 The Secretary of Senate may make incidental amendments to University
Senate policies and procedures, such as typographical and grammatical errors, adding definitions for clarity or making secondary changes resulting from other related policy decisions, without a full policy review, provided it does not significantly alter the meaning of the policy.
4.2 Incidental amendments are reported to AGPC, and thereafter to Senate, for information.
5. Procedures Update Process
5.1 Recommending procedural updates is normally the responsibility of the
Responsible Office. Such updates will typically not alter the meaning of the policy, significantly change the procedures, or place additional responsibilities on students. Where the updates are within the purview of the Responsible Office, that office will determine the most appropriate process to draft the updates required.
5.2 Procedural updates will be recommended to AGPC, typically through the Secretary of Senate. If AGPC is satisfied that the changes are truly procedural, these will be recommended for Senate’s consent agenda (i.e. they will only be discussed at the Senate meeting if a Senate member requests a discussion). As an additional safeguard to ensure that procedural updates are not an attempt to change a policy or to make significant procedural changes without consideration by Senate, the Senate Priorities Committee (SPC) makes the final determination about what goes on the consent agenda versus what should be included for discussion and approval by Senate.
5.3 If AGPC determines that the proposed changes go beyond procedural updates, AGPC will present an appropriate motion to Senate for its consideration, one outcome of which could be that Senate establishes a Policy Review Committee to address the proposed changes.
6. Scholarly Research and Creative Activity Committee (SRCAC)
The SRCAC performs the same functions as stipulated for AGPC in these Procedures in relation to the area of responsibility specified in the Senate Policy Framework, Section 5.4.
DRAFT Senate Policy Template
This template will assist with drafting and formatting Senate policies. It contains descriptions of what information should be provided for each section of a policy.
NOTE: All policy documents should use Arial font, size 12. Main headings should use Arial, size 13, followed by 6pt spacing.
1. Paragraph Header
1.1 Sub-section Header
1.1.1 Sub-sub section Header
22.214.171.124 Sub-sub-sub section Header
Policy Document Title
Include the following information in the Policy Document:
Related Documents: Title of all related document(s) such as procedures, schedules, or forms, and links to the document(s). If there are more than a few items that need to be listed, consider moving this section at the end of the policy. Responsible Office: Title, role, and/or department.
Approval Dates: Date of initial approval followed by date(s) of policy reviews when Senate approved the changes.
Describe the policy's objective(s).
2. Application and Scope
Describe to whom or to what the policy applies. Note any excluded groups or areas if relevant.
Provide key terms, abbreviations, and acronyms associated with the policy. Include specific terms that are important to understand the policy. If appropriate, consider providing a link to the glossary of PDF filePolicy #2: Undergraduate Curriculum Structure.
4. Values and Principles
Identify the values and governing principles for the policy. You may choose to separate the substantial and operational principles, examples of which are provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Policy Framework.
Provide focused statements. Use simple, straightforward language. Include reference to applicable policy principles, glossaries, appendices, etc. from other relevant policies.
Provide details on the appropriate and necessary steps required to comply with the policy.
NOTE: Whereas policy determines WHAT is to be achieved, procedure
determines HOW it is to be achieved.
1. Roles and Responsibilities
Identifies the roles and responsibilities of employees, students or others, as related to the policy. Does not include a repetition of who the Approver is, unless the role has additional and specific responsibilities as related to the policy.
2. Rescinded Policies or Related Documents
Highlight any policies that are rescinded as a result of this policy coming into effect OR any other policies/documents that are related and/or relevant to this policy.
If the list of definitions and terms is too long to be included at the start of the beginning of the policy, consider creating a glossary and include it as an appendix to the policy.
Any other information that is relevant to the policy, but not appropriate for the policy or procedures section, may be included as an appendix e.g. guidelines, flowcharts, etc.
The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Lens for Policy Development nd Policy Review
Policies may inadvertently create barriers for individuals or groups. The following worksheets are intended to provide a lens that will engage policymakers to consider the potential impact of Policies and procedures for diverse peoples. Policies should not have unequal impact, services provided should be accessible and decisions should be fair and flexible.
Ryerson Academic Plan – Community and Inclusion Values
Community: The university sustains its commitment to ensuring a strong sense of belonging and engagement for students, alumni, faculty and staff, and values mutual and reciprocal relationships with the broader community.
Inclusion: The university values the equitable, intentional and ongoing engagement of diversity within every facet of university life. It is the shared responsibility of all community members to foster a welcoming, supportive and respectful learning, teaching, research and work environment.
Equity: The university values the fair and just treatment of all community members through the creation of opportunities and the removal of barriers to address historic and current disadvantages for under-represented and marginalized groups.
Diversity: The university values and respects diversity of knowledge, worldviews and experiences that come from membership in different groups, and the contribution that diversity makes to the learning, teaching, research and work environment.
Respect for Aboriginal Perspectives: The university will continue to cultivate and develop relationships with Aboriginal communities, both within and outside the university. The campus environment will embrace and support Aboriginal learners, faculty and staff, and ensure Aboriginal people take a leading role in the advancement of Aboriginal education at Ryerson.
Access: The university is committed to providing access to education and employment opportunities at Ryerson for students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds, in particular those from marginalized and under-represented groups.
EDI Considerations Systemic Barriers
Consider how the Policy and procedures reflect Ryerson’s values and might be inclusive or exclusive for women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and LGBTQ and racialized people. Also consider impacts based on religion and socio- economic status, and for those who are new to Canada.
Consider including EDI principles and values in the Policy. For example, in a section about principles or values that are the foundation of the Policy.
Consider power imbalances and attempt to address them in the Policy and associated procedures. Those with power, because they are in leadership roles and/or because they are in the dominant social group, often have advantages over those who are not in leadership roles and/or are not in the dominant social group. Those with power often get to determine what is acceptable and appropriate in a given set of circumstances.
Recommended Actions and Examples
- Consult broadly with individuals and groups who are interested or active in advancing equity, diversity and inclusion for the aforementioned groups and can consult with individuals from those groups (e.g. Chairs of Access Ryerson working groups and Positive Space).
- Ensure processes address power differentials, such as when student makes a complaint about an instructor or an employee disagrees with the decision of their manager or supervisor. For example, provide for a third party decision maker or advisor role to be involved in the process.
- Obtain demographic data to be informed about how specific Policies and procedures may have a disproportionate impact on some groups (e.g. higher percentage of smokers amongst Aboriginal peoples and immigrants from some countries compared to the general population).
- Review academic research articles, relevant to the subject matter, from an equity, diversity and inclusion perspective (e.g. when developing security and safety related Policies, review literature related to how those Policies might create barriers for racialized people).
- Access Ryerson principles;
- Ryerson Library (use live chat to find sources about a topic, or search Articles and Databases)
- Ontario Human Rights Commission definitions of Indirect/Constructive Discrimination and Systemic Discrimination.
(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed.)
Consider whether the language of the Policy reflects the values of equity, diversity and inclusion, particularly in examples and guidelines.
Specifically, consider whether the language is gender neutral, refrains from reflecting stereotypes and biases, and acknowledges differences.
Recommended Actions and Examples
- Use language that promotes inclusion and avoids bias (e.g., use the term ‘mental well-being’ or ‘mental health condition,’ which is more inclusive compared with the term ‘mental illness.’ Use the term person who ‘uses a wheelchair’ or ‘wheelchair user’ instead of person ‘confined to a wheelchair’).
- Use plain language and avoid idiomatic expressions (e.g. ‘waiting in the wings’) or colloquialisms (e.g. ‘blacklist’) that may have negative connotations for some groups and/or may not be understood by people from different ethnic backgrounds or for whom English is not a first language.
- Avoid terminology such as ‘man-made’ or ‘man hours’ (can use ‘machine made’ or ‘synthetic’, and ‘hours of work’ or ‘person hours’).
- Use gender inclusive language such as ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’ and use ‘spouse’ or ‘partner’ instead of ‘husband/wife’. When providing examples that involve relationships include same sex relationship examples.
- Use ‘person(s) with a disability’ instead of ‘disabled person or people’
- Avoid terminology such as ‘suffers from’ when referring to a person with a particular type of condition.
- Capitalize the proper names of peoples such as First Nations, South Asian, Trans, etc.
- Ryerson Human Rights Services;
- Ryerson University Marketing and Communications style guide; and
- Ontario Human Rights Commission material. Material related to language can sometimes be found in sections on the protected grounds of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)
Fairness and Flexibility
Consider whether the Policy and associated processes support fair decision making and provide a flexible framework, in which decisions are made based on specific facts and circumstances.
The focus should be on fair outcomes and not on having everyone necessarily follow the same process. Consider whether the Policy reflects the principle that treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them the same.
Processes under the Policy should be transparent and allow for individuals to participate in the decisions that impact them. Further, providing alternatives and acknowledging different paths or processes will increase a Policy’s transparency and accessibility for all individuals.
Recommended Actions and Examples
- Ensure the Policy informs individuals of the basis for making decisions that impact them.
- Allow for the consideration of specific circumstances when making decisions and avoid rigid rules that do not permit discretion to be applied in different situations. For example, a person relying on Wheeltrans to get to work may need flexibility to accommodate the unpredictability of arrival times that others who have more transportation options do not.
- Ensure forms and documents are in accessible formats (see link to Access Ryerson resources below).
- Outline how the Policy provides for: a) input into decisions by the person(s) affected by the decision; and b) appeals of decisions that impact individual(s).
- Include provisions for individual needs to be accommodated.
- Access Ryerson tools (including checklists and guides to creating accessible document);
- Your HR article on Universal Design principles and practices;
- Your HR article on different definitions of fairness; and
- Ryerson Ombud’s office information on fairness and natural justice.
(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)
Human Rights and Competing Interests
Consider whether the Policy is consistent with Human Rights principles, treats individuals with dignity and respect and does not have an inequitable impact based on protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code).
The Code prohibits discrimination against people based on protected grounds in protected social areas. Protected grounds include:
- Ethnic Origin
- Place of Origin
- Family Status
- Marital Status (including single status)
- Gender Identity
- Gender Expression
- Receipt of Public Assistance (housing only)
- Record of Offences (employment only)
- Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
- Sexual Orientation
Protected Social areas include accommodation (housing), contracts, employment, goods, services and facilities (including education), and membership in unions, trade or professional associations.
Consider whether the Policy recognizes, and provides mechanisms, to resolve potential competing interests.
An example of competing rights can be seen in cases involving rights based on sex and based on religion. Some people in Western society consider wearing a niqab or veil to cover one’s face to be oppression of women. In some countries, such as France, niqabs are completely banned in public.
Recommended Actions and Examples
- Include a process for situations where there are competing rights, which allows for the parties to determine appropriate action through discussion or negotiation before more formal resolution processes take place;
- Consult broadly with constituents who will likely have different points of view about a Policy, such as those who use service animals and those who have concerns about animals on campus, those who want all gender washrooms and those who want separate washrooms for men and women, and people from different faith/creed groups.
- Ontario Human Rights Code;
- Ontario Human Rights Commission Policies and guidelines on relevant topics; and
- Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy on competing human rights
Policy Considerations Related to Human Rights and Competing Interests
(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)
Section 1: General Info
Policy name (e.g. Examinations Policy):
Responsible Office (Please state role or department):
Section 2: Policy Action (Please check appropriate box)
This checklist is an exercise to assist the policy owner in considering how policies align with Ryerson’s mission, vision and values. We note that some academic policies may not reflect the items listed below, but are necessary and proper policies.
These terms are taken from Ryerson's mission, vision and values as described "Our Time to Lead - Academic Plan 2014-2019." For more information on these terms, please review the Academic Plan at:
**Please check all that apply**
Mission and Vision
Foster scholarly, research and creative (SRC) activities
Foster an innovation ecosystem
Foster/support community and student engagement
Support experiential learning
Respect for Aboriginal Perspectives
Please explain how the policy supports/reflects the mission, vision, and values selected.