Report of the External Relations Committee (ERC)
Committee Members: Deirdre Knapp (Chair), Eden King, Debbie Major, Dianne Maranto
Activities Since Last Report:
Following the last EB meeting, Ed Salas and Debbie Major conveyed to usthe EB’s interest in having the ERC take a more active role in coordinating SIOP’s involvement with APA. We understand this to include such things as suggesting nominees for APA council rep, obtaining information on APA presidential candidates regarding their support of SIOP interests, and helping to identify nominees for APA boards and committees. We will turn our attention to this in 2011 when Debbie will have information we can use to update the APA calendar of activities (timing of elections, etc.).
Deirdre met with representatives of the American Society of Training Developers. They are following the Workforce Investment Act, which is something that may be of interest to SIOP as well. They do joint lobbying with SHRM so it should be easy enough to include SIOP when it makes sense to do so. There is also a Federal push for credentialing (voluntary certification in this case) which includes identifying applicable test standards. ASTD is serving as a kind of broker between the major accreditation bodies (the Institute for Credentialing Excellence and ANSI). We’ll follow this. Also, ASTD is interested in teaming with SIOP members on user-oriented publications much like the model we are pursuing with SHRM.
Eden did some checking into the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA). This is an advocacy organization similar to FABBS. APA is a governing member (which means there are APA folks on the Board of Directors), and is the only psychology-related member other than SPSSI. Their primary efforts seem to be directly related to increasing
federal funding for social science research. They have a biweekly newsletter and we are guessing it would cost between $3,900 and $8,000 for SIOP to become a member. Their website is not overwhelmingly impressive. For now, we may want to consider exerting any influence over this COSSA by working through the APA folks on the board of directors (Bray and Beckler). We think we are generally better off with the Federation/FABBS since they have a little broader scope, and what seems like a higher rate of activity in general.
No new agenda items surfaced during this reporting period. We welcome new items from the EB and SIOP members.
Participate in a 2011 SIOP session in which we will describe the role of the ERC and solicit ideas for agenda items. We will invite members of our partner organizations (e.g., ATP, APS) to participate. It would also be helpful to have at least one member of the EB attend.
Periodically confer with FABBS and APA about our needs/interests/priorities. Periodically touch base with our “partner” organizations to maintain lines of communication.
Pursue shared advocacy goals with SHRM, which will require follow-up with Mark Schmit early in 2011. Their lobbying power and interest in practice issues can cover territory not addressed by our staffers at FABBS and APA who focus on science issues.
Develop a systematic strategy for sharing advocacy-related activities with members and for encouraging active participation.