Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Minutes of the Spring 2011 Executive Board

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
April 17, 2011
Hilton Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Members Present:
Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Debra Major, Mort McPhail, Julie Olson Buchanan, David Peterson, Doug Reynolds, Steven Rogelberg, Lise Saari, Eduardo Salas, Paul Thayer, Howard Weiss, and Mike Zickar. David Nershi and various committee chairs were also present.

Members Absent: None.
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS 
FINANCIAL REPORT
CONSENT AGENDA
TIMED ITEMS - SCIENCE ADVOCACY TASK FORCE
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 
     UPDATE - NEXT JOURNAL EDITOR
     CONFERENCE UPDATE
     FALL CONSORTIUM
     LEC REVAMP REPORT
     APA MODEL LICENSURE ACT UPDATE

     ASPBB MEETING UPDATE
     INTL. REVIEW OF I-O PSYCH. & NEW BOOK SERIES
     RESEARCH ACCESSIBILITY FOR PRACTITIONERS PROPOSAL

GOVERNANCE
     VOTING RIGHTS FOR ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
     FEEDBACK FROM TOWN HALL MEETING
     COMMITTEE SUNSET REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS
VISIBILITY—STATUS OF BRANDING PROPOSAL
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
     APA COUNCIL REP. REPORT
     APA COALITION FOR SCHOOLS & EDUCATION
MEMBERSHIP
     LETTER OF CONCERN
     MEMBER SURVEY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
OTHER MATTERS
     ASSISTANCE TO JAPAN
     ALLIANCE DOCUMENTS
     SUNSET REPORT: CONSULTANT LOCATOR
     ANTI-BULLYING POLICY
     SCIENCE & PRACTICE COIN AWARD
ADJOURNMENT
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
 
President Colella called the meeting to order at 9:28 a.m. CDT. Colella gave a few opening remarks. She explained the Board’s meetings process and strategic goals. She introduced new members: Julie Olson-Buchanan, Steven Rogelberg, and Mike Zickar. The new members signed SIOP’s conflict of interest statement. Committee chairs adjourned for training.
 
FINANCIAL REPORT
 
Dr. McPhail explained the financial report. We’ve had significant recovery in our reserves over the last year. Our budget came in last year with a net operating surplus of $100,000. About half was used to replenish our current operating capital. We made about a $50,000 addition to the reserves. Our reserves are $1.33 million. Right now our annual operating budget is $1.7 million, so we have not achieved our goal for reserves yet. We want a year’s operating budget.  
We are changing our budget process. For the last number of years we have approved a tentative budget at the April meeting, which wasn’t finalized until the September meeting, when we are already a quarter into the budget year. We are now asking that all portfolio officers get budgets to SIOP Finance Manager Linda Lentz to be presented to the board at the end of June. We will then approve the budget before the budget year starts. This also puts pressure on chairs to look at their budgets.
In 2009, the board approved changes to both our financial principles and our reserves policy. Dr. McPhail requested it because up to that point there were inconsistencies between the two documents. We haven’t given recent consideration to what amount our reserves should be. Right now we have our goal at one year’s operating budget, but we should take a look at whether or not that is right. Dr. McPhail passed around a draft of a goal and proposal. At the time the approved the current goal, he said he would come back to the board at the January meeting with a proposal. He wasn’t able to do that, but many things had changed and he has one now.
Right now we are at 75% of our goal. We added a stipulation that if our reserves fall below 75% one year or 90% over three years we have to take a look at them. We are making modest returns, but not nearly what we made in the past, and we probably won’t ever make that rate again. Mr. Nershi did research on organizations our size. The median reserve value is 40% of operating budget. We didn’t find a great deal of consistency in what people call their reserves and operating budgets. We don’t have a lot of confidence in that number, so Mr. Nershi looked at the worst-case scenario. We have insurance, negotiations, etc. We have things we can do if we don’t have a conference, which is the biggest risk. If the conference didn’t go on, we wouldn’t lose the whole value of it. We need to have provisions for the administrative office as well. We also get dues revenue. So adding that and subtracting the expenses, we have come up with about 80% of the annual budget is what we need. That would be $1.4 million for this year. We still haven’t achieved that goal, but it is much more in reach.
Mr. Nershi explained SIOP’s event cancellation insurance. Our risk exposure is $500,000, Dr. McPhail said. Dr. Peterson asked about potential loans, if they were ever needed. We have never taken out a loan, but we have a good relationship with our financial advisors. Dr. McPhail said he will talk to them about a loan when he meets with them next. Dr. Hakel asked about liquidity. Most of our investments are mutual funds, so we can get to those dollars. Our reserves are in mutual funds, so they could drop. We made our investment policy more conservative last year. If the board wants to change it, we can. President Colella said the board can talk about this in September.
KARE Funds. Dr. McPhail explained that we have extra funds left over from the KARE project established for Hurricane Katrina. We are proposing that we donate this to the House that SIOP Built. Dr. Hakel moved to donate the leftover KARE funds to the House that SIOP Built. Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted motion to donate leftover funds from the KARE initiative and to the House that SIOP Built project.
 
CONSENT AGENDA
 
Dr. Weiss moved to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
 
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:
 
·          January board minutes
·          Report of emergency action items
o    Change to conference programming to eliminate one theme track
·          Portfolio reports accepted:
o    Conference and Programs
o    Publications
o    Communications
o    External Affairs
o    Membership Services
o    Professional Practice
o    Instruction and Education
o    Research and Science
 
 
TIMED ITEMS - Science Advocacy Task Force. Dr. Steve Koslowski explained that the task force wants to strengthen the scientific foundation of SIOP and outlined their recommendations. The stability for what we do is threatened. Our view on this comes from professionals in advocacy. We need someone who can do the networking. We have connections, but we need someone who is always prepared to speak and coordinate this. We need someone to be the link between us and other organizations. We can’t do this with volunteers. Dr. Salas thanked the task force for writing the report. We have needed this for a long time. This report is a no-brainer, but we need the roadmap and the cost. We will need to explore where a staff would be located, what we would pay them, etc. We need a job description. Dr. Knapp said they’ve been trying to do this with the External Affairs Committee. 
Dr. Weiss said he thinks the report provides an opportunity for some strategic discussions around issues. What kind of science are we? What do we have in place that’s worth advocating for? What are we? These things are going to come up against cost issues. How long can we continue running this organization on the cheap? Our dues are structured as if we are a division of APA. We can’t continue to run this organization as a division of APA. Dr. Koslowski said the committee is working to answer question like these first through a survey of members.
Dr. McPhail explained there are two issues. First, there is a financial obligation. Yes, we can do some things immediately that are relatively inexpensive, but when you talk about a staff person, especially if they would be in D.C., there are a lot of expenses. We cannot fund it in our current budget and we would need to find a way to fund this. We could change the dues structure, for example, but I don’t think it will happen this year. Second, the report is advocacy and funding from the standpoint of science. What about practice? How do we get everyone on board? Dr. Major asked what steps the board can take now to move forward. Who’s taking ownership? President Colella said this is the perfect thing for the Institutional Research Committee to do. We need to vote to go ahead and do more fact-finding.
There was discussion about the focus of the task force and their goals, and how to work with other groups within SIOP to focus on both academic and practitioners. Dr. Rogelberg said he is in favor of science-practice integration, but he is not sure how much this is going to benefit practice.  This should not be seen as a problem. Some SIOP initiatives will target integration. Some initiatives will target practitioners and some will target academics. Dr. Peterson said he is less concerned about practitioners on this topic, but we should focus outside of just our membership. Dr. Reynolds said he would like to see us think about the process. How do we institutionalize a process? State and Federal lobbying are different. Dr. Koslowski said we made need to separate science and practice lobbying. Dr. Weiss said we are confusing advocacy for the members with advocacy for the science. This is about the science of I-O. It doesn’t matter if scientist or practitioners are producing the science. People need to know it is important for national issues. It’s advocacy for the science of workplace psychology.
President Colella proposed a vote to take a census of the members with responsibility residing with Institutional Research Committee. Steve’s Koslowski’s committee will serve a guiding role. All committees will be asked what they want on this and what would be useful. Dr. Koslowski said he would like the board to accept the report.
Dr. Salas summarized that they would vote to accept the report in principle and go forward with the census. Then the task force would come back in September with much more precise road map of the costs and start the conversation again. Dr. Salas moved to accept the proposal of the Science Advocacy Task Force, including adding the census with the annual SIOP survey, and then the Task Force will come back in the fall with precise budget numbers and strategy going forward.  Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the proposal of the Science Advocacy Task Force proposal, including adding the census with the annual SIOP survey, and then the Task Force will come back in the fall with precise budget numbers and strategy going forward.
Dr. Koslowski will talk with Mr. Nershi about the cost for a database and a person to work in the advocacy role. Dr. Salas suggested that they come with a report that lays out the framework for how to explain this to membership. Heather Kelly, Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer for APA, explained that she is here to help us as a service of APA. She can help with briefs and white papers, etc. and advocacy efforts. She is here for us on a regular basis. Board thanked her. Dr. Koslowski said the whole point of what they are doing is to try to make better use of people like Heather.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS UPDATE
 
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

Update on Next Industrial-Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice Journal Editor. Recommendations were made by the Publications Board for the next IOP journal editor in February. Kevin Murphy was recommended as the new editor. Board discussed the recommendation and Scott Highhouse moved to accept the recommendation of the Publications Board for Kevin Murphy to serve as IOP journal editor, beginning January 2012, and assuming duty for three volumes beginning April 2012. Doug Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the recommendation of the Publications Board for Kevin Murphy to serve as IOP journal editor, beginning January 2012, and assuming duty for three volumes beginning April 2012.
Conference Update. Dr. Finkelstein said it was a great conference, with a total of 4,637 attendees. Theme tracks were packed. Feedback can go to Dr. Finkelstein. President Colella said she didn’t hear very many complaints. There was a lot of positive feedback. New people said they loved it. Dr. Finkelstein said that at the last conference meeting they discussed ways to help with the large number of conference submissions but limited space in the program. We have decided to only have one theme track next year. We will combine them—the president will choose the topic and the program chair in training will run it. There was an emergency action vote on this. We are not sure which day it will be held, but we will finalize that by June conference meeting. Eden King is incoming program chair in training. Dr. McPhail said there was a request to bring up the possibility of SIOP providing childcare at the conference, even if it’s paid for by the users. Dr. Finkelstein said she will bring it up at the next conference meeting. Insurance costs are involved. Mr. Nershi said he had arranged things like this before but wonders how much use it will get. He will look into it.
Dr. Salas asked about the numbers of international attendees. Maybe the workshops could offer translation? Dr. Finkelstein said she will look into that too. Dr. Brannick asked about workshop numbers. It’s down from last year. Dr. McPhail said it was a little less than 90% of our planned total.
Fall Consortium. In the absence of Kurt Kraiger, Mr. Nershi gave a brief overview of the speakers that are lined up. The topic is “The Virtual Workforce: Designing, Leading, and Optimizing.” Dr. Kraiger and the co-chairs have been scoping people out for sessions from the conference. There will be a lot of content at this LEC on social media as well. It is looking to be a great program. There is a special registration rate for Executive Board.
LEC Revamp Report. Mr. Nershi explained that Dr. Suzanne Tsacoumis and her subcommittee created a proposal with four recommendations. The main recommendation is for the LEC be handled as we handle other committees—appoint a chair and come up with a more formal structure. Dr. Salas moved to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee. There was discussion that the LEC doesn’t need local arrangements or volunteer coordinators, and this will be taken out of their recommendations. We will need to also choose a chair this month. Dr. Salas motioned to approve the recommendations as modified. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approve the recommendations of the LEC revamp subcommittee as modified to exclude wording related to a local arrangements and volunteer coordinator.
APA Model Licensure Act Update. Dr.Brannick said they sent SIOP’s letter to APA in February. They heard back a week or so ago. There is nothing that requires immediate action. They reiterated that the MLA is simply a template for the states, and this is a state decision. They recommended that we be in touch with the states individually. Dr. Brannick also attended an open meeting at the conference. APA said they did agree with us, but it is a state decision. The letter will be available after the meeting. They took our letter seriously. Dr. Salas said APA sent him an email offering to send someone to our conference, maybe next year. Because of the impact that Dr. Brannick had at the meeting, he believes there is an opportunity for SIOP to draft a model regulation saying we are not medical psychologists. This is an opportunity for the State Affairs Committee. Dr. Brannick said the Model Licensure Act was intended for state legislatures while the model regulation is the nuts and bolts of how the licensure boards enact the laws in their state.
ASPBB Meeting Update. ASPPB passed its own model licensure act in 2010, Dr. Brannick explained.  The Executive Director of ASPPB offered to come to a board meeting. It’s a very small group. They have a lot of influence at the state level. We need to keep in contact or strengthen our contact with them. We will have executive director or ASPPB at the fall meeting.
International Review of I-O Psychology and New Book Series. Dr.Highhouse explained that Wiley has had some concerns about their annual volume, the International Review of I-O Psychology, mainly visibility. They approached SIOP about making it into a SIOP journal. He presented this to the Publications Board in Orlando. They said this isn’t something they would have created for SIOP. We are happy to sign on as an international initiative with EAWOP, but we don’t want this to be a SIOP branded journal. They would like Dr. Hakel to think about how to get the Alliance involved. The decision was not to move forward with the request from Wiley but consider it for the Alliance.
The Science You Can Use series was a series proposed by Drs. Gary Latham and Denise Rousseau. Things weren’t coming together with the chapters. He went to Publications Board in February and asked them if we wanted to find a new editor and publisher. They said we already have too many handbooks right now. We aren’t even sure if this is something practitioners want. At this point, we will not move forward with this series. We’ve already let the chapter authors know that we will not move forward. Dr. Salas said he doesn’t want the series want to die. There was discussion of how this differs from the Professional Practice series. Dr. Saari realized that the contract we were operating under was really for an annual review of I-O. Dr. Highhouse talked to publications board about whether we wanted to move forward with this original vision. They said no to this, too. Now is not the time to move forward on this. The same people who do the Annual Review are interested in an I-O version. Dr. Koslowski explained it. Dr. Rogelberg noted the publishers we have right now at SIOP are not prepared or motivated to penetrate the market outside SIOP.
Research Accessibility for Practitioners Proposal. Dr.Brannick presented a summary of Dr. Rich Cober’s work over the last six months. Practitioners want more direct access to our publications. All our practitioners seem to get access to is the Journal of Applied Psychology. Access to journals and access to summaries are the two recommendations from Dr. Cober. I-O at Work is a heavily trafficked site. They get about 7,000 hits per month. Our practitioners are looking for access to snippets as well as the option to get into the journals themselves. Dr. Cober wants feedback from the board. Using EBSCO we can create a batch of articles for practitioners. Our practitioners want direct access to journals. What are they willing to pay if this were an optional part of membership? We can combine access to journals if we work with EBSCO. We need to find out the price point. Dr. McPhail said he thinks the idea of having bundles as an optional service is excellent. We wouldn’t cast is as part of membership but offer it as a product on top of membership. He thinks practitioners would find it very useful. This would be something we could also sell to nonmembers. Dr. McPhail explained that this gets us out of the business of denying space in the bundle of journals to some people and not others. Dr. Cober said he envisioned it that way. We need to know how many practitioners would actually buy it and then manipulate the prices to find out the best point.
Dr. McPhail suggested also taking this to our legal counsel to make sure it’s okay to offer it to nonmembers. Dr. Reynolds noted that we would have to be very clear about the potential list that would be available if we are asking people how much they would pay. Dr. Brannick suggested offering different levels of subscription. Dr. Zickar suggested SIOP find out the cost first so we can say ‘here’s the product, would you be willing to pay any of these prices?’ We can get a menu of services and costs. Dr. Cober will send it to Brannick. Dr. McPhail added that the bigger market they have, the better discount they can give us.
Allison Mallard, who runs I-O at Work, is still interested in SIOP partnering with the site. This wouldn’t cost us anything. I-O at Work recruits grad students to read through the journals to create summaries of articles. They send the summaries to the authors for feedback. They also provide the direct link to the publisher website to buy it. She’s not looking for us to sponsor anything. She just wants to share links. Mr. Nershi explained that the concern when this was originally presented was that this is a commercial site with Mallard’s logo and the sponsors. There was more discussion of why SIOP would want to align with I-O at Work or share links. Dr. McPhail explained that before, we were not sure about the quality of the summaries. But if Mallard’s doing feedback with the authors, that addresses the issue. Her motivation then was that this was something she thought she needed herself. It seems she is just being altruistic. Dr. Weiss said that if it’s washed of commercial elements, there is no downside. There was discussion of whether this could snowball into other organizations wanting to put their resources up on the SIOP website.  At some point we have to say no, Dr. Peterson said. With just one link, it would be a strong endorsement.
Dr. Zickar said he would like to see a policy for sharing links like these. Also, where will the SIOP logo be? Is it going to look like we are endorsing I-O at Work? Dr.  Brannick summarized that we should move forward with the EBSCO work and look into I-O at Work. They will work on EBSCO over the summer and have something before the fall. Dr. Rogelberg added that we have a conference listing page. So what’s wrong with a resources page? We do have a page already, so we just need to create a policy? Mr. Nershi said we already have a policy in the administrative manual about what we can post on the website. Dr. Peterson said the key issue seems to be the difference between profit and non-profit enterprises. Dr. Weiss added that the policy should also say that this should be of benefit to members. Dr. Cober said we will create a policy for posting resources on the website based on what we already have and what we have talked about today.
GOVERNANCE
Voting Rights for Associate Members. Dr. Saari presented a proposal for an Associate to earn their way to full membership of SIOP by be being an Associate member for five years. It would require a bylaws change. This issue is somewhat related to our membership growth issue. Our membership has basically been flat over the years, about 2,700 people. Our student membership has gone from a little more than 2,000 To 4,000. Our associate membership has also doubled, though it is only 650 people.  Dr. Saari said APA is the only organization we know who does this. President Colella said several people have told her that they have dropped out of SIOP because they felt like second-class citizens. Dr. Truxillo added that they feel like we want their money, but they can’t vote. Yes, we’ve had growth, but are people staying around or are those all new people? Dr. Saari explained that under the proposal you would still be an Associate member, but long-term this enables you to gain voting rights. There was discussion of whether or not this would enable Associates to get on the Executive Board.
Dr. Weiss said that over the long-term this could drastically change the demographics of SIOP. Dr. McPhail said this is also a problem with clinicians. Master’s level people are battling doctoral level people. Mr. Nershi added that only 25-30% of our eligible members vote. Dr. Saari said we need to know the metrics and proposed SIOP get more data around the membership categories. President Colella suggested that the Membership Committee bring this to the September meeting and we will revisit it then.
There was more discussion of nonmembers who have master’s degrees and SIOP’s rationale for requiring a PhD. Dr. McPhail added that one way to address this would be to change the ratio of those in science vs. practice. Dr. Highhouse added that some people are going to the Academy of Management because they say SIOP isn’t academic enough. President Colella said that people are always going to say it’s too academic or it’s too practitioner-oriented. Dr. Weiss: this would change the ratio dramatically, as there are no masters-level academics. We don’t want to change the demographics of SIOP so dramatically. Dr. Hakel noted that some master’s level I-Os might be teaching at the University of Phoenix. Dr. Thayer noted that if we are scientist-practitioners, and the terminal master programs don’t focus on research, we are going against our ideals. Dr. Reynolds asked, what do we really get when we say we want a PhD? He knows several masters people who are excellent scientists. If we included this in the criteria, we are providing a pathway that is an answer. President Colella said we will get back to this in the fall.
Feedback from Town Hall Meeting. Dr. Salas said there was a good turnout of about 30 people. No complaints. We put an abstract from last year in the program, so we will have to watch that next year. Maybe we could let people know about it at the plenary, like a “Come and meet with me” message? President Colella asked if we can find a way to identify ourselves as SIOP people electronically. We can create an electronic signature or letter head or something. Electronic letterhead would be helpful.
Committee Sunset Review Assignments. President Colella explained that every five years committees get sunset reviews by the portfolio officers. They are staggered. We will vote at the winter meeting. 

VISIBILITY
Status of Branding Proposal. Dr. Salas explained that we had a proposal to the board that went back for review at the last meeting, where we suggested they come back with a proposal for information. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that Dr. Kevin Kramer requested approval for a request for proposals. There was discussion of whether or not SIOP wanted to do this. The direction given was to develop a request for information. Dr. Kramer is working on it. Dr. Weiss we were not enthusiastic about this before, so it’s not like we are waiting for it. Dr. Salas said that Dr. Kramer either needs to bring it back or be done with it. President Colella and Dr. Reynolds said they are both interested in seeing the request for information. Dr. Brannick said that Dr. Reynolds had suggested they narrow the focus and audience. Branding, if done properly would address many of the issues we have been talking about in SIOP.

ADVOCACY
APA Council Representative Report. Dr. Major explained the task force report about how to improve the APA convention. For a division like us who has its own conference, the influence is minimal. For divisions with no conferences of their own, it is threatening that they may reduce program space.  APA has hired a consulting firm to help them review their governance process (Good Governance Project). Sandy Schulman is working with them. Divisions will be asked for input. The implication is that there’s a lot of interest in bringing president-elects together with APA program chairs to talk about programming. Dr. Peterson said he was surprised at the number of divisions that feel disenfranchised. No group feels APA represents them. They share the word psychology but not much else. Dr. Vicki Vandaveer and other members were involved with helping develop competency models for the new APA CEO. There is also a new practitioner wiki on APA’s website. They also voted to reduce APA dues and there is a reduced discount for people who are members of other organizations. Retired members, who formerly paid no dues, will be charged an administrative fee. Bill Strickland received a Presidential citation for his contribution to APA. Dr. Major said she will also include in the TIP report a reminder that our members do not have to members of APA, APS, etc. to be members of SIOP. They just have to be members when they sign up.
APA Coalition for Schools and Education. Dr. Salas said he will accept the invitation to the coalition. APA has asked Dr. Salas to give a keynote address. There is a lot of support for this. Dr. McPhail added that APA just reviewed standards for teaching psychology in K-12. Dr. Hakel noted that THEO (The Educational Outreach Event) was not a success, however. 300 invitations were sent out, but only 8 teachers were able to take the day off to see it. The committee plans to do this again in San Diego. Maybe Dr. Salas can mention this in the keynote address for APA?
MEMBERSHIP
 
Letter of Concern from Mike McDaniel. President Colella explained that this is an old letter sent out in November 2006 to Past President Jeff McHenry. He brings up that we have as advertisers in TIP and in our conference test vendors who he is claiming do not follow the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. The original letter is signed by very prominent individuals. Dr. McDaniel is saying the original letter was never addressed. Dr. Zickar asked if there was a disclaimer in TIP that SIOP does not endorse advertisers. Mr. Nershi said there isn’t, but there should be. We can add it. Dr. McDaniel wanted this in the contract with vendors. President Colella said we have no way to police this. There was discussion of why the request was made. Dr. Rogelberg asked if SIOP should create a committee people can go to if they feel there is an ethical infraction. Mr. Nershi said members agree to adhere to the APA ethics code, but some of these companies are not run by members and are not I-O psychologists. Dr. Weiss asked if Dr. McDaniel is contending that SIOP is behaving unethically or if it is the advertisers. President Colella said Dr. McDaniel thinks SIOP is behaving unethically. He wants a monetary penalty for those who go against the principles. Mr. Nershi explained that when this was originally discussed, they planned to put something in TIP and we thought a letter was sent. Dr. Saari said she does not think SIOP can become police officers for this. Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked if there is a way for us to put the burden on the advertisers to say that they are following the principles. President Colella said she will end the letter saying we hope advertisers will follow the ethics, but we have no way to police this. We will also include a disclaimer in TIP that SIOP does not endorse advertisers. Dr. McPhail also suggested our attorneys take a look at the letter.
Member Survey for International Affairs. Dr. Foster Thompson explained the purposes of the survey. It is to identify any issues for those practicing abroad. Should this be a part of the membership survey? There was general agreement that it should. President Colella said all committees will have a chance to put things on the survey before it is compiled.
 
OTHER MATTERS
 
Assistance to Japan. Mr.Nershi explained that a member sent a letter wanting us to help those in Japan. We decided we would instead bring it to the board to see what action is appropriate. How could this relate to the KARE project? We would not be first responders. Dr. Thayer said we don’t do this for every disaster. How would we decide which disaster to respond to? Dr. Tracey Rizutto explained that there are a lot of resources we can provide here in the U.S., but it’s difficult to provide on-the-ground support if we don’t have ties to the community. Dr. Rogelberg suggested the board see if there is a Japanese I-O group or the equivalent and contact them for help. Dr. Colella said she and others donated books to those who lost their libraries. There is a Japanese I-O group. Mr. Nershi said we did have three I-O’s that were supposed to attend SIOP, but we aren’t sure if they ever came. The board agreed to send a letter. Dr. Debra Rupp will get contacts. The letter will come from President Colella.
Alliance for Organizational Psychology Governance Documents. Dr.Hakel reviewed the governance documents for the Alliance. When Dr. Gary Latham was president, we invited EAWOP and IAAP-1 to SIOP. He said “size matters” and we need to collaborate on international matters. Two years ago in New Orleans, the three organizations created the Alliance for Organizational Psychology. It calls for a federation of societies, not an individual organization. You become a member by virtue of your membership in a member organization. IAAP passed this in congress last July. Discussion in January was about issues of membership, the notion that EAWOP or any other member would have first refusal of any the groups wanting to join in their area. EAWOP is an organization as well as a federation. Because it’s a hybrid organization, they have both a general assembly and council consisting of the member countries. EAWOP wants European organizations represented through EAWOP rather than another organization.
Dr. Hakel received an email from the president of EAWOP. Their executive committee is enthusiastic about the goals of the Alliance but is critical of the form that is outlined in the governance. There was discussion about issues EAWOP has pointed out in the documents, and Dr. Hakel said he will work to get this worked out moving forward. Dr. Hakel is in favor of adopting the governance document provided that if EAWOP backed out, SIOP could launch the Alliance with just IAAP-1. Many other groups and countries are interested in this. President Colella suggested voting on it as it stands right now without guessing what EAWOP means. IAAP won’t have another meeting until 2014. EAWOP meets every two years, so not making this work will mean it could take a long time. Dr. Hakel is asking the board to accept the governance proposal for the Alliance. Dr. Weiss moved to accept the proposed Alliance for Organizational Psychology Governance documents. Dr. Olson-Buchanan seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the proposed Alliance for Organizational Psychology Governance documents.
Committee Sunset Report: Consultant Locator. Dr.Reynolds explained that he completed the sunset review of consultant locator. The purpose of this tool is to provide a method for practitioners to gain visibility. Sometimes the Administrative Office gets calls to hire consultants but can’t make recommendations, so we needed a service for this. Dr. Reynolds said he does not think this should go forward. It’s down to only 33 people and 4 companies. It is only making 14 percent of its budget. His recommendation is to let the Electronic Communications Committee look at this and possibly integrate this with other communications tools. One good idea was to make the service free and simple, and not just include consultants, and then ask people to pay for an extended entry. The value of this would be to have a lot of people in it. Dr. Reynolds recommended SIOP discontinue Consultant Locator in its present state and have the ECC look at it in the context of other communication tools. There was discussion about what to do with the current subscribers. Dr. Reynolds moved to sunset the Consultant Locator in its current state and request that the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) looks into revamping it. Dr. McPhail offered a friendly amendment to suspend acceptance of subscriptions until a decision has been made about revamping the locator. Dr. Reynolds accepted the friendly amendment. Reynolds’ motion is to sunset the Consultant Locator per his recommendation and the report under the condition that people who are currently in Consultant Locator will be offered the opportunity to stay, but the service will be revamped, and the Board is asking the ECC to recommend how the service will be revamped. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The board discussed asking those using the service what benefit they get out of it.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the recommendation of Doug Reynolds to sunset the Consultant Locator per his recommendation and report, under the condition that people who are currently in Consultant Locator will be offered the opportunity to stay, but the service will be revamped, and the Board is asking the Electronic Communications Committee to recommend how the service will be revamped.
Anti-bullying Policy. Dr.Saari explained we have looked at what the statement would include. The goal is that we have people who have felt intimidated and that something should be done by someone with authority. We have no method to address this. We had an idea to put examples down, include definitions, and then tell people what they can do. This needs a legal review. Some of the examples brought forward fall into the legal arena and have legal implications if they are ignored. This includes all members, volunteers and executive board, etc. President Colella said that if we are going to take this to legal, we should include harassment and discrimination in it. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said this will address appropriate behavior and address how to bring issues forward. We looked at APA’s policy. Olson-Buchanan just wrote a book about this and would be happy to help. Dr. Weiss said there was a lot of discussion on this but differences in opinion on the process. Dr. Saari said the policy ended with the discussion of SIOP’s values and then ways to get it addressed. President Colella said the immediate action is putting forth a values statement and then developing a policy to deal with this.
Science and Practice Coin Award. PresidentColella has coins for this. She explained the purpose and reminded the board that they can give these if they write a paragraph about how the recipients highlight science and practice. This is not a career award. It is for a moment of action. Dr. Salas said he will draft the standards and rules for awarding the coins. Each year, TIP will include the winners and why they won. In closing, the board hasn’t decided on dates of next meetings yet.  
 
President Colella closed the meeting at 3:45 p.m. CDT.