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


Minutes of the Fall 2009 Executive Board Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

September 18, 2009
Chicago, Illinois

Members Present: Tammy Allen (Research and Science Officer), Cristina Banks (Professional Practice Officer), Jose Cortina (Representative to APA Council), Scott Highhouse (Publications Officer), Deirdre Knapp (Representative to APA Council), Kurt Kraiger (President), Gary Latham (Past President), Ed Locke (Representative to APA Council), Mort McPhail (Financial Officer/Secretary), Jim Outtz (Instructional and Educational Officer), Doug Reynolds (Communications Officer), Lise Saari (Membership Services Officer), Eduardo Salas (President-Elect), Donald Truxillo (External Relations Officer), Suzanne Tsacoumis (Conferences and Programs Officer), Howard Weiss (Representative to APA Council). Awards Chair Anna Erickson was also present.
Members Absent: none
     IRS FORM 990





President Kraiger called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. CST.
President Kraiger explained that there is a great deal of work that will need to be done at this and the winter meeting.
First President Kraiger stated that the board has many new people on it who are not experienced yet. They will need to learn the culture. As leadership of the Society, the Board needs to make decisions, lead SIOP, and act collectively as leaders.
Secondly, President Kraiger acknowledged two board members for whom this was their last board meeting. Drs. Knapp and Cortina are rotating off the Board as APA Council representatives. President Kraiger stated they have both been exceptional contributors to the Board and Council and thanked them for serving.
Dr. McPhail reviewed the financial report. He thanked all of the officers for cutting their budgets and stated SIOP is now going to have a very small deficit not counting investments. We now have a $6,700 deficit from the much larger number that we started with.
Dr. Weiss commented that this is a much smaller deficit than similar organizations. He said APA was trying to draw their deficit down from $2-3 million and has had to lay people off.
We finished with a net operating deficit of $48,000 last year. That is down from the projected budget deficit, which was $53,000. We have a large amount of cash and cash equivalents right now and we will be working with our investment advisor over the next 3-6 months to decide what to do with it.
Dr. Locke expressed concern that National City has lost a lot of money in the current economy. He asked if SIOP should be worried that they are handling our money.
Dr. McPhail stated that National City has not fared any worse than other investment firms. They didn’t do anything wrong. Our losses were substantially less than others’ losses.
Dr. Locke expressed concern about the national deficit and a chance of inflation. He asked what SIOP’s plan is in case that occurs. Dr. McPhail explained that this question was raised before and that SIOP has asked the investment advisor to look into it. They will hold a conference call in early October to propose a strategy for the issue. We are also going to be talking to him more than once per year.
Dr. Banks asked about the role of the Executive Board in determining investment strategy. She asked if we have any policy options to counterbalance the losses. Dr. McPhail explained that most of the losses are due to a drop in investment values and that we can look into getting better short-term investments with better returns. We have also changed some policies to increase revenues, but are open to other ideas. We are choosing to gradually increase fees, rather than do it all at once. We had lower revenues at the conference but we also had lower expenses. In 2010, we will keep expenses low and we expect attendance to be up a bit. But we have kept the numbers flat and been conservative with what the increases will be.
Mr. Nershi explained that the conference projections are conservative, but with low room rates and easy transportation in Atlanta, we should get a higher attendance. SIOP also has more members on the East Coast.
There was a discussion on the topic of SIOP’s dues. The board discussed what the dues pay for, the prospect of raising them in the future, and how dues changes have been communicated to members in the past.
Dr. McPhail continued his report, stating that SIOP has more money in reserve than most other organizations in our position do. We have just under a year’s worth of operating budget in our reserves. One of the things that we do with that is fund the $48,000 deficit we had last year. Dr. McPhail explained how the committee chairs and administrative office worked together to cut their budgets by 4 %. Some cut much more. Everyone helped. The result is that the expected deficit, taking out the investment portfolio loss, is about $6,700.
Dr. McPhail revised the proposed budget to show the committee cuts. This was available to members in the briefing book supplement. Dr. McPhail moved that the updated proposed budget be approved. Dr. Latham seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Final 2009-2010 budget approved.
Proposed Investment Policy Revisions. Dr. McPhail and Mr. Nershi spoke with SIOP’s investment advisor about putting together a revised investment policy that includes roles and responsibilities and makes our investing more conservative. Policy statement changes were provided to the board in their briefing booklet. Dr. McPhail explained that SIOP is responsible not so much for growing its dollars, but for conserving them for future use. There is still a great deal of risk in the economy. Conservative investing will help us preserve the capital we have. This would mean locking in our losses, but if we are going to recover, we need to place our money in strategic locations that allows us to recover.
Dr. McPhail explained that these policy revisions entail moving 30 to 50 percent of the cash we have into the market over a period of six months and looking into transferring some of our funds into investments where we would get higher earnings. It gives us the ability to maintain more cash if we choose to. It gives us flexibility. It is not a big change. It is still a moderate strategy with a tendency toward conservatism. We were limited to 40 percent cash. This gives us another 10 percent to keep cash.
There was discussion about whether the investment policy change would cause SIOP to consider whether the right company is investing for us. They discussed possibly looking around for someone who may have experience with nonprofit organizations.
Dr. McPhail moved for the adoption of the investment policy statement as given on pages 20 and 21 of the board’s briefing book that first, modestly changes the investment allocation policy we previously had; second, explicitly states the roles and responsibilities of the board, financial officer and executive director in investing; and third, provides for performance monitoring
Dr. Latham seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Changes to SIOP’s investment policy accepted. (See Appendix I)    
The board continued to discuss a strategy for moving forward on looking into other potential investment advisors. Mr. Nershi explained that, in his experience, there is generally no significant difference in performance, but that the real difference in advisors is customer service. President Kraiger asked Dr. McPhail to obtain quotes from three different advisors and take it to the Emergency Action committee with his recommendations over the next month so the board can take action and vote on the best steps. The vote from the Emergency Action Committee will be reported at the next meeting.
Proposed Revision to Reserve Policy Language. Dr. McPhail explained that our current reserve policy states in the principles that SIOP must maintain a one-year operating budget as a reserve, though this is not always be possible for the Society when they have to use the reserve for emergencies such as the deficit last year. He explained that, therefore, SIOP is in violation of its principles and that they need to be changed.
Dr. McPhail also explained that the principles are not clear what the reserve funds can be used for. He moved for the board to substitute a revised paragraph (page 24 of the briefing book) for what already appears in the policy (#7 of the “SIOP Financial Principles”).
Dr. McPhail also proposed a second motion to modify the SIOP Reserves Policy Statement to clarify the reserves purpose in concert with the SIOP Financial Principles and to clarify how excess reserves will be allocated. 
The new policy will say we will strive to reserve at least a year’s operating budget. If we get more than 10 percent of that in our reserves, we will put them into the three categories identified. Additionally, the old policy is silent with respect to allocation of interest from investments which is currently placed as a line item in the budget.  Under the new policy, we would reinvest it unless we make it an explicit decision to place it in the operating budget.
Dr. McPhail moved to approve the changes to the reserve SIOP Financial Reserves Policy Statement and SIOP Financial Principles. Dr Latham seconded the motion.
The board discussed the need to have a one-year reserve. Dr. Cortina said he felt the original Financial Principles expressed that SIOP really did want to have a year’s operating budget as a reserve if not more. With the change in the policy to not require the reserve, he expressed concern that the reserve would inevitably have less money in it. Dr. McPhail stated that by making it a requirement instead of just a goal, the current policy forces SIOP to be in violation of its principles. There was lengthy discussion on how to best maintain a substantial reserve to protect SIOP for unforeseen future expenses while also allowing the Society to utilize the reserves when it is necessary. Some members suggested checks to be put in place to prompt the board to make up any used reserve funds and to ensure the Society continues to strive for a set amount to remain in the fund.
Dr. McPhail moved to table the motion. Dr. Outtz seconded the motion.
ACTION ITEM: unanimously voted  to table the motion that would amend SIOP’s Financial Principles and the SIOP Financial Reserves Policy Statement.
Board went into executive session for the purpose of discussing the current procedures for the Executive Director’s Performance Appraisal Review.
SIOP’s auditor has noted that the policy in place has not been followed in its entirety from year to year. The board recommends that the Executive Director send the procedures in June to all members of the Review Committee. In addition, the rating dimensions for evaluation will be sent to all members of the Executive Board. The committee will then follow the procedure as documented.
Motion made by Dr. Latham to accept the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Dr. Highhouse. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda accepted. Approved the following:
·         Emergency Action Subcommittee items:
o   Executive Board conference programming block approved.
·         Structural Change: Move the Doctoral and Masters Consortia under the Instruction and Education Portfolio.
·         Manchester Hyatt- APA Controversy (FYI Only)
·         Memorandum of Understanding between APA and Divisions 13 and 14 regarding the establishment of an interdivisional Disaster response Committee.
The Board went into executive session to discuss awards recommendations.
Dr. Highhouse made a motion to accept all of the recommendations of the awards committee with the exception of the recommendation for one award. In that case, the Board requests that the awards committee revisit the award decision. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion.
There was discussion on how to make the awards process smoother and on deciding what the Executive Board would like to see in nominations. Dr. Salas stated that the board needs to have a clear definition of its role and it is not clear. Dr. Erickson stated her understanding is that the board may accept or reject but not substitute nominations. It is unclear as to what the board has to reject or accept them based on.
Dr Knapp requested the awards committee send the rules they are following to the board beforehand.
The board generally agreed that its role is to ensure the awards committee practices due diligence to follow the established awards nomination process.
President Kraiger asked Drs. Saari and Erickson to give this some thought and return to the winter meeting with recommendations they may have about better presenting the committee’s nominations to the board. The awards nominations process will also be included in the briefing book.
Dr. Highhouse’s previous motion was passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted all of the recommendations of the awards committee with the exception of the recommendation for one award. In that case, the Board requests that the awards committee revisit the award decision.
In regard to the motions that was passed in April for the establishment of two Early Career Contribution Awards, one for science and one for practice, Dr. Erickson stated she would like to give one award this year and then discuss that there will be two next time, academic and practitioner, because there was not enough time to go through the process for both awards.
Dr. Knapp expressed concern over having two separate awards that the kind of people that couldn’t meet the purely academic criteria also won’t meet the criteria for a purely practice award. Some people do science and practice. Dr. Erickson said she welcomes input on the award criteria, which have not yet been set.
There was discussion as to what would constitute a practitioner and an academic in terms of award criteria, since some members do both or define it differently. Dr. Knapp suggested making the award for academic versus practice instead of science versus practice, since many practitioners follow the science-practitioner model and would consider their work science.
The board continued to discuss the difficulties in obtaining nominations for practitioner awards and how to remedy this. President Kraiger suggested either clarifying the award criteria or changing it to encourage more nominations.
Sunset committee reviews: President Kraiger explained that over the past four years, the board fell behind doing sunset reviews. We are doing eight or nine over the next few years to catch up. The board members have the procedures.
Name Change Runoff and Election. The Executive Board was presented with a schedule in their meeting briefing book which outlines the dates for a proposed name change.
Annual 401 k Resolution for SIOP Inc. attesting the previous year’s contributions. Dr. McPhail stated the Secretary had to sign a Document for this Resolution so it could not be approved with the consent agenda. Dr. McPhail read the 401 K resolution. Dr. McPhail moved to accept the resolution. Dr. Latham seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the Annual 401 k Resolution for SIOP Inc. attesting the previous year’s contributions.
New Requirements for IRS Form 990. Mr. Nershi explained that this year the IRS updated the 990 form which all non-profits are required to file to make sure they are in compliance with their tax status. Two additions have to do with whistleblower and conflict of interest statements.
Dr. McPhail summarized the whistleblower statement as encouraging reporting of unethical conduct and with freedom from retaliation. For the conflict of interest statement, the board needs to read it and sign documents explaining that they have no conflicts of interest or what they are, if they do have conflicts. Board members should read and sign the conflict of interest statement and return it to Dr. McPhail.
The third document is the document retention policy, which identifies retention periods for the documents SIOP keeps. The primary provisions are that SIOP staff, volunteers, contractors and members of the board are required to follow the policy regarding records saved by SIOP Finance Manager Linda Lentz, records must be destroyed by secure means, no documents should be maintained on personal computers after expiration, no paper or electronic documents may be destroyed if pertinent to any legal investigation. Categories pertain to the specific types of records included in the document. Dr. McPhail said this type of policy is pretty common and prudent.
Dr. McPhail moved to vote on all three policies at once. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Dr. McPhail discussed with the board instances where there is and is not a conflict of interest. He explained that it is considered conflict of interest if SIOP is in direct competition with something the board member is doing somewhere else.
There was discussion of the records retention policy, which deals with anything that involves the work of SIOP. Dr. McPhail explained that records retention usually is not a problem but has come back to cause trouble when records are retained or not retained properly. Prudency says we should not have old drafts lying around. The subject of retaining e-mails was discussed. Many organizations only retain old e-mails for a few months and then delete them, whereas SIOP staff often needs to refer to old e-mails that have been sent out. Dr. Banks suggested the board explicitly state a specific policy of what should be retained and for how long.
Dr. McPhail amended his original motion. He moved to approve the first two policies, the whistle blower and conflict of interest policies, and vote on the third policy later in the meeting after discussing it. Dr. Latham seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Motion passed to approve a Whistleblower policy as well as a Conflict of Interest policy for The Society. (See Appendices II and III)
APA Council Report. Dr.Knapp discussed the last APA Council meeting. She said they spoke a lot about the financial situation. They ended 2008 almost $5 million in the red. They must have a balanced budget in 2009. There was a lot of cutting. They normally have two sets of meetings, for the second year in a row they will not have the fall meetings. They passed a budget assuming the meetings would not occur in 2010. They will review revenue projections in December. They did make some progress on strategic planning. They voted to accept the plan goals and objectives.
APA nominees for president spoke. They voted to suspend a CPI dues increase in 2010. There were two votes related to reports and resolutions.
Dr. Weiss stated that he continues to wonder what APA has to do with SIOP and what we have to do with APA. At some point it is worth having a serious discussion about the future of SIOP with APA, particularly considering the partnership with the other organizations (The Alliance for Organizational Psychology).
Dr. Banks discussed how SIOP can leverage its relationship with APA. If we adopt a collaboration model, we might get more visibility and influence. She welcomes feedback on her TIP article with Joan Brannick regarding this topic.
There was a discussion regarding APA being centered on clinicians. Dr. Cortina stated he feels we would need very hardworking reps who want better relationships with APA like Dr. Knapp for several years to get anywhere with APA. Dr. Locke asked if we want to work that hard to gain influence in an organizations whose mission is so different from SIOP’s. Dr. Banks noted that the individual practitioner is dying in clinical psychology. They are pretty weak right now. At the summit, they said they are looking for a lot of answers as to how they can survive. One of those is by coming into our organizations where we work. Healthcare reform is pushing them out of the medical model. They could supplement what we do.
There was a discussion of whether SIOP should be trying to influence their initiatives on their own or if it is not worth the effort. Dr. Weiss mentioned it may not be better to try to enact our goals independently. Dr. Latham mentioned that APA’s James Bray has been listening to SIOP, but that he thinks Dr. Weiss is right and that he thinks we should have a task force to explore what could happen and for APA to know we are doing this.
President Kraiger noted that SIOP cannot complain about APA not helping the Society if the Society never asks for anything. He suggested we continue to do what we are doing in APA but also look at alternatives to APA and decide the path in the future. There was more discussion on how SIOP can leverage its relationship with APA and get more of its goals accomplished through APA. President Kraiger mentioned that APS is supporting an accreditation model to support the practice of science. APS is trying to support this because it helps its members do better science. He said he sees this as a model or an aspiration of what we want from APA.
Dr. Latham moved to take the reserve policy motion off the table from Friday. Dr. McPhail seconded it.
Dr. McPhail made additions and changes to the policy, incorporating Dr. Cortina’s concerns. He drafted a new paragraph to replace paragraph seven which states that in the event the reserves are 90 percent or less of the goal in a consecutive three years or less than 50 percent in one year, the president will request a task force to get the reserves back to the goal. The Executive Board will then consider recommendations to get to the goal. The board is not mandated to follow the recommendations.
After some comments, Dr. McPhail made a friendly amendment to the paragraph, changing the 50 percent reference to 70 percent. The paragraph does not specify a new goal. Dr. McPhail recommended the board pass the motion and then allow him to continue to research other organizations and worst-case scenarios for the next meeting. We can then vote on changing what the goal would be at the next meeting. The new policy says the board can do what is necessary and appropriate but requires no action. Dr. Locke suggested the board should be required to take action to get the reserves back to the goal. There was general agreement by others that constraining the board that way would be going too far.
Dr. McPhail moved to remove the reserve policy matter from the table and to accept the documents appearing on pages 24 and 25 of the Executive Board briefing book regarding the SIOP reserve policy, as amended by the discussion from the previous day as well as the friendly amendment from that day changing the 50 percent reference to 70 percent. Dr. Latham agreed to the friendly amendment of 70 percent instead of 50 percent and seconded the motion. Fifteen votes in favor. One vote opposed. Motion passed. (See Appendix IV)
ACTION ITEM: Accepted a motion to amend the SIOP reserve policy adding that in the event the reserves are 90 percent or less of the goal in a consecutive three years or less than 50 percent in one year, the president will request a task force to get the reserves back to the goal, as amended by the discussion from the Executive Board meeting as well as the friendly amendment by Dr. McPhail to change the 50 percent reference to 70 percent.
Foundation and SIOP Awards. Dr, McPhail presented two motions: The first is a proposal that with 2010 conference, the office and SIOP include the Foundation in materials to show that they have contributed to the awards and grants. Dr. McPhail moved to accept this motion. Dr. Weiss seconded this motion. Dr. McPhail made a friendly amendment that the “program chair” reference in the amendment be changed to the “conference chair.” Motion passed unanimously
ACTION ITEM: Accepted a proposal that beginning with 2010 conference, the office and SIOP will include the Foundation in materials to show that they have contributed to the awards and grants, including a friendly amendment to change the “program chair” reference in the amendment be changed to the “conference chair.”
Dr, McPhail explained the second motion. Some awards are funded now with a line item in the regular budget. The proposal is that for any awards containing a dollar amount, the Executive Board transfer those dollars to the Foundation to write the checks, so that all the awards would say “funding for this award is provide by the SIOP Foundation.” In the future, if we have more funds, we could consider endowing the Foundation for the awards and those funds for those line items would come off our budget. At that time the awards would be paid for out of the Foundation funds. The board of the Foundation would facilitate further funding of the awards.
There was discussion about whether or not the change would make it look like the Foundation has a place in determining who gets receives awards. Mr. Nershi stated he thought the motion would actually make the relationship between SIOP and the Foundation clearer. The awards would be called SIOP awards but would be funded by the Foundation. Mr. Nershi stated that the foundation is a 501(c)3, so they can solicit charitable gifts, whereas SIOP cannot.
President Kraiger explained the two major issues: endowment and the bookkeeping aspect. The process of who gets the award is always the same. Who is paying for the award changes from award to award? In this proposal we are writing out the same number of checks for the awards but they all are funded by the Foundation. It is a simpler message. It makes SIOP and the Board’s role clearer. The Executive Board still decides, but it makes it look like the Foundation is responsible for all of the awards.
There was further discussion about the relationship between SIOP and the Foundation. Dr. Weiss expressed concern over moving authority for the awards to the Foundation and possibly creating problems down the road. Dr. McPhail explained that it is for marketing purposes. If they write all of the checks, there is motivation for them to solicit funding for the awards. Dr. Outtz expressed concern regarding giving an award funded by the Foundation that isn’t coming from them. There was more discussion regarding this issue as well as apprehension to give the Foundation more power over the awards.
President Kraiger and Dr. McPhail agreed to discuss the issue with Milt Hakel over a conference call to formalize the relationship between SIOP and the Foundation.
Dr. Latham made the motion to table the motion regarding the funding of the awards. Dr. Locke seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Tabled a motion for SIOP to provide the funding to the Foundation for awards so that all awards will be “funded by the Foundation.”
The board continued the discussion of the retention and destruction document as well as the handouts Dr. McPhail disseminated to the board with lists of what should be kept and for how long. President Kraiger asked Mr. Nershi to bring a set of guidelines to the board next meeting highlighting the retention procedures. Dr. McPhail moved to accept the proposal. Dr. Latham seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Accepted SIOP record retention policy.
Mentoring Program: Dr. Banks explained the proposal from the Professional Practice Committee for a mentoring program. The proposal outlines the plan to launch the activity. At this point the committee is looking for an endorsement from the Executive Board to go forth and design the program. Dr. Latham noted that this is how SIOP is responding to the practitioner survey and the need expressed by practitioners to inform people about what is going on in practice and share knowledge.
President Kraiger asked that the committee keep the board updated as they tweak the program and bring it back to the board at the next meeting. Dr. McPhail asked that the committee let the board know of any anticipated costs as far in advance as possible so that we can prepare for them.
Dr. Latham moved to endorse the mentoring program. Dr. Locke seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted a motion to endorse a proposal by the Professional Practice Committee to continue plans for a mentoring program.
Practitioner Career Study Proposal. Dr. Banks presented to the board a proposal for the study. It’s basically a job analysis of practitioners that takes a multi-method approach. The Professional Practice Committee is asking for $25-30,000.
There was a great deal of discussion from the board on the merits of the study, whether there are more cost-effective ways to administer it, and the chances of the proposal being ultimately accepted by the board.
Dr. Reynolds asked how this interacted with a potential certification program. President Kraiger said he would like to put together a task force that looks at whether or not we can develop a certification program. It would create a voluntary system that accomplishes everything licensing is supposed to accomplish but we would have direct control over it. We don’t want to double our efforts or do a redundant job analysis. EAWOP has already done a job analysis. They don’t have to have the same competencies, but we should be able to draw the lines connecting them. With the growth of the alliance, we want there to be a connection between U.S. and Europe. There was more discussion regarding what need the study would serve. 
President Kraiger polled the board asking if the Committee resubmitted their proposal if the board would vote to accept it or if they would never support it no matter how much it was revised. Ten people said they would not vote for any revised study and four said they could be convinced this is a study worth doing if there were a lot of changes (need, purpose, costs, etc.) made to the proposal. One abstained.
President Kraiger asked Dr. Banks to tell the committee their proposal needs to be revised and that the likelihood of us accepting a revised proposal is low.
Discussion Tool for Executive Board (Wet Paint). President Kraiger explained his goal to streamline and make more efficient how the board has electronic discussions. It can be very difficult to follow a discussion through e-mails. The Wetpaint.com wiki will be used for discussion from now on. Any time there is a discussion you will receive a notification via e-mail. Then you go to the discussion on the site and reply. This avoids the multiple e-mail problems. The first discussion issue will be the APA gold medal award.
Content Management System for the Alliance. President Kraiger explained that we have registered the domain name for the Alliance Web site with a static page. One of the things we want to do is have a Web site for the Alliance to communicate across organizations, post documents, facilitate advocacy, etc. The group wants to be able to edit the page, so they are asking that they have their Web site on our CMS. If we were to have a stand-alone Web site, the cost is $6,000. But if we use the technology we already have, it is only $3,500. We are proposing that SIOP pay for it. One of the commitments made to the Alliance is that we help develop this Web site. We didn’t say we would pay, but we did offer support. We are in a better position to do this, with more staff and more funding. We don’t have to pay for this indefinitely; it will be a one-time cost.
Dr. Locke moved to accept the proposal to add the page to the CMS for $3,500. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion to purchase CMS passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted motion to purchase Content Management System functionality for the Alliance for a one-time cost of $3,500.
Dr. Knapp requested the board keep a record of what they are spending so that it is divided fairly amongst the Alliance organizations. Mr. Nershi said he would document the expenses.
ADVOCACY (cont.)
Advocacy Task Force. President Kraiger said he had three initiatives this year: 1) Move the Alliance along this year. Beginning this year, we have two “research incubators” on the conference program that includes researchers from multiple countries. 2) Return to working on the advocacy initiative. 3) Social Media policy. The advocacy group is about a month away from having a final set of recommendations for the board. They are going to recommend that we create a standing advocacy committee, which we do not have right now. Many committees do advocacy, but this would put it all in one place.
There was discussion about the goals of the committee and about the limits of what SIOP can advocate. Dr. Reynolds explained that the purpose of the committee is to advocate the goals and strategies of the board. They will have to communicate with the board first. Dr. Knapp added that the committee would be a tool of the board to be proactive and support the president in responding to questions about issues. President Kraiger said he would just like to raise awareness of this issue and that the board will probably talk more about this in January. We need to discuss the issue of how empowered the president is to give answers and advocate in the name of SIOP. He would like to wait and see what the task force comes up with before any decisions are made.
White Paper Proposal. Dr. Truxillo stated that it would be good for SIOP to begin writing white papers. Even if SIOP doesn’t completely agree on one answer, they agree on a general range of answers, and the Society is already starting to write white papers with EAWOP anyway. This will help get SIOP’s position and thoughts out to the public. President Kraiger noted that SHRM has said they would be interested in short papers on state-of-the-art research about five pages long. Dr. Weiss suggested posting white papers online. He said we need to better consolidate SIOP members’ knowledge for dissemination to the public.
Dr, Truxillo suggested a committee to work on this. Any policy statements/white papers would need to be approved by the Executive Board. This would enable a quick turnaround for responses to the media. We would already have the information gathered.
Dr. McPhail suggested publishing in an HR magazine. Not so academic, but wide readership. There was more discussion of how to get these white papers out into the public and whose job it is to do so. President Kraiger asked the advocacy committee to think about the role of the white papers in terms of advocacy. Then he and Dr. Truxillo can come up with a proposal and look at the other issues.
Ambassador Program. Mr. Nershi explained that this program links first-time conference attendees with people who have attended in the past. They get in touch once before the conference and meet at the conference. The veteran will introduce the first-time attendee to someone else.
Electronic Communications Wiki Proposal. Dr. Kraiger said he wants to use the electronic media as a way of getting information to help practitioners do their jobs better. There would be a searchable site that helps them get information. He handed out examples to the board in packets. This would be a large, highly organized member site that is a member service that can be accessed only by members to help them look up specific resources for accomplishing things in the workplace. An example is that it is difficult for practitioners to access journal stories without paying a great deal of money. The wikis would give them access to this research and information. We can include how-to’s, summaries of research, tools, etc. We would also want to create a customizable list of journal articles on all topics somehow, possibly using the “I-O at Work” blog.
There was discussion on who will contribute to the blog and how content will be found. The board discussed how it is a great responsibility to fill the blog with current content, similar to what has been seen with the SIOP Exchange. Some people who benefit from their content and research may not want to share it. However, research papers are generally already in the public domain. The board discussed the benefits and downfalls of sharing more information for free online.
President Kraiger said he would like to have a full proposal to vote on in January. He also suggested that the Board support two wiki sites, one for the academic community and one for the practitioners. President Kraiger said the board will also be discussing the Society’s tagline through Wetpaint.com. The board chose a tagline to accompany the name a year ago. There has been a few time when the board said they didn’t like it. President Kraiger would like the decision made before January.
Meeting adjourned by President Kraiger at 12:48 p.m. CST.