Minutes of the Fall 2010 Executive Board
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
September 10-11, 2010
Members Present: Tammy Allen, Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Scott Highhouse, Kurt Kraiger, Ed Locke, Debra Major, Mort McPhail, Doug Reynolds, Lise Saari, Eduardo Salas, Lori Foster Thompson, Suzanne Tsacoumis, Howard Weiss.
Members Absent: Milt Hakel and David Peterson.
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Salas called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. CST. He thanked the board members for their enthusiasm over the last year. He also thanked Dr. Locke, who was attending his last meeting (Paul Thayer will fill this position) and congratulated Dr. Colella for her promotion to department chair at Tulane University.
President Salas remarked on his presidential theme of celebrating SIOP’s science and practice and gave three presidential coins to each board member. He explained that they should give these coins to members of SIOP at their discretion whenever they do something that celebrates or highlights the science and practice of I-O psychology. We will advertise the recipients at the end of the year in TIP. We will acknowledge the recipients via the slideshow at the conference opening plenary.
The board decided to launch this in January and announce a few of the recipients at the conference. Each board member can give up to three a year. President Salas asked board members to notify he and SIOP Executive Director Dave Nershi when they hand out a coin and to give them a brief description of why. Dr. McPhail suggested calling it the I-OSP award, the I-O Science and Practice Award, so that it includes the science and practice aspect as well as being an anagram of SIOP. Dr. Weiss suggested calling it a coin or medal since SIOP already has many awards. Dr. Weiss also suggested passing them out at SIOP for sessions that include science and practice. President Salas will send the board the criteria for the coins soon.
President Salas asked for more ideas for his presidential theme. Dr. Locke suggested a report on important scientific discoveries and ideas that have practical implications for I-O practitioners. Dr. Allen suggested a set of posters that highlight specific science-practitioner collaborations. Dr. Highhouse suggested sending an e-mail to members to nominate the most important I-O technologies throughout the years and creating a timeline. President Salas said we could advertise this in TIP. Dr. Colella suggested having the SIOP Historian work on this and also suggested a theme track at the conference. Dr. Colella asked if we could have something on our website for people to find others to collaborate with. Dr. Kraiger explained that this collaboration was one of the original ideas of the wiki. Dr. Reynolds suggested showing case studies in I-O where you could describe a project and give a template that would be posted on the website. Dr. McPhail said one of the things he believes has hurt the science and practice collaboration is the commoditization of research. It is interfering with the free flow of knowledge.
Dr. McPhail reviewed the financial report. He has met with the new investment advisor and transferred funds to them. He explained the asset plan for SIOP for 2010-2011. Our reserves are now worth $200,000 more than they were last year, which is a turnaround from when our stocks were down $300,000 the year before. We do need to have substantial amount of cash available to pay bills. However, we have been carrying more cash than is optimal. We had to liquidate the cash from our investments because the new investment advisor will be investing in new funds. At the end of the day, our reserves will total $1.17 million. Our annual budget for 2010-2011 is $1.78 million. Our goal is one year’s operating budget, so we are not there yet. Policy calls for the Dr. McPhail to advise the board when SIOP reaches more than a year’s operating budget that we have obligated ourselves to spend those dollars. Dr. McPhail said he will bring up a point in spring or winter to reconsider whether a one-year operating budget reserve is the right reserve to have.
The budget the board has before them for fiscal year 2010-2011 is complete. We made more from the conference this year. As registrations increase, so do costs, but Dr. McPhail thanked Mr. Nershi for controlling conference costs so that we have an increase in the numbers of registrations and an increase in income. Dr. Weiss asked about the drop in workshop revenue. Dr. Tsacoumis explained that when the economy dropped the workshops were hit hard. Dr. Kraiger said he anticipates the workshops being popular in 2011.
Dr. Kraiger asked if the journal is a source of income or an expense. Dr. McPhail said it is an expense. Mr. Nershi explained that income from subscriptions is low and there is a very high threshold before we can share in income. Dr. McPhail explained that it is costing us about $68,000 per year. When we have future discussions about raising dues, we should keep this in mind. There was discussion about marketing the journal. Mr. Nershi said he is concerned that we need to have very substantial institutional subscriptions or other sales in order to make money from the journal due to the profit structure in the contract. Dr. Highhouse said people do appear to be reading it. Dr. Weiss said it’s a great journal, but it’s targeted to I-O’s, we get it for free, so why would a library need it?
Dr. McPhail said we are not using zero-based budgeting for the committees. If the committee chair doesn’t submit a budget, the budget figure for the last year is used as the basis for the next year. We have some committees whose budgets never get spent and other committees who go over budget. The portfolio officers need to keep up with their committees to make sure they know their budgets before they submit an expense. Dr. McPhail suggested he organize a portfolio officer training at the winter meeting and the officers could then share the information with their respective chairs.
The preliminary budget for fiscal year 2010-2011 yields a budget surplus of $5,594, which is pretty good for this sized budget. This does include that the conference committee has recommended an increase in registration fees for this year. The second thing that is included is $15,000 of interest and investment dividends from our reserves. Historically, the earnings on those reserves have gone into the operating budget. When we passed the reserves policy last year, we made it explicit that the board must approve that withdrawal from the reserves. This is no different from what we always do, but we need to approve it. There was discussion of increasing the conference registration rates. Dr. Weiss said that increasing the conference registration fees is essentially increasing the dues because so many members go to the conference. Mr. Nershi commented that we currently we lose money for each student who registers because their registration fee is less than our per person cost. Students are 40 % of attendees.
There was more discussion of how SIOP is allocating its investments. Dr. McPhail assured the board the actions of the new investment advisor correspond to SIOP’s moderate to conservative investment policy. Dr. McPhail is proposing a modification to the budget for next year for the financial officer to meet in Bowling Green with the staff and advisor and auditor once per year. He did this year and it was very helpful. Dr. McPhail motioned for the Executive Board to approve the budget for the fiscal year 2010-2011 with authorization to allocate up to $15,000 worth of interest from reserves to the operating fund. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the budget for the fiscal year 2010-2011 with the authorization to allocate up to $15,000 from reserves to the operating fund.
Dr. Tsacoumis motioned to approve the consent agenda. Dr. Colella seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:
· Report on Emergency Action Items
o Restated 401K Plan Approved
o Financial Advisor Approved
o Funding of $5,000 for Capitol Briefing on Preventing Disasters Approved
o Executive Board Programming Block Approved
· April Meeting Minutes
· Annual 401K Resolution for SIOP Inc., attesting to previous year’s contributions
· Portfolio Officer Reports
Awards Committee Recommendations. The board went into executive session to discuss the recommendations of the Awards Committee. After executive session, the board decided that Mr. Nershi will verify whether there are a few awards recommendations that are not currently paid SIOP members. If not, Dr. Anna Erickson will take it back to the committee and they will vote again. Dr. Kraiger motioned to accept the recommendations of the awards committee with the exception of the William A. Owens Award. Dr. Locke seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the recommendations of the Awards Committee, with the exception of the William A. Owens Award.
Drs. Brannick and Allen will put together a task force to help promote the Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award – Practice award. President Salas suggested the awards chair put something in the next TIP asking for nominations. Dr. Kraiger also suggested using the Exchange blog to invite comment about the award. Dr. Locke suggested asking for a self-statement of what a practitioner has done so more people would self-nominate. Dr. Weiss suggested a communication to members saying that we are thinking about how practitioners could be better represented and trying to find out what kind of awards criteria would be useful to them. Dr. Erickson recommended the professional contributions award be more practice focused next time. Dr. McPhail said any changes we make should be noted in the next awards call.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREA UPDATE
The SIOP APA MLA Task Force Report.
Dr. Brannick explained the report on the APA Model Licensure Act (MLA). When the board met in April, the MLA had been approved by APA. We were also informed that the Division 14 council representatives had submitted a revision requesting a clarification in the MLA regarding how it is applied to I-O psychologists. APA came back with the stance that they like the language of the MLA; they think it is clear. They also recommended that it go on to other boards including the Board of Scientific Affairs. President Salas said he is a member of that Board. He has already warned them that this issue is coming. We need to draft an e-mail he can send them. Then see if the board can take someone other than him to the meeting in D.C. and lobby.
The MLA task force used a two-step suggestion process: first step was to get options on the table. The second step was to narrow down the options and rank them. The top recommendations were: (1A) clarify our statement on MLA, (1B) contact other organizations with similar issues, and (1C) get lawyers to review the MLA for legal input as well as other options. Dr. Brannick said the board would need to vote today and decide some content and approach to move forward. Dr. Kraiger motioned to accept the top three recommendations of the task force. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded. Dr. Kraiger took a friendly amendment by Dr. McPhail to vote separately on each of the MLA recommendations. Dr. Kraiger withdrew his motion. Dr. Tsacoumis motioned to approve 1.A, the first recommendation. Dr. Allen seconded the motion.
There was a great deal of discussion relating to the content of the opinion and how the board feels about the MLA in relation to SIOP. Dr. Kraiger said we need a policy statement on this issue. Dr. McPhail noted that the chance of APA changing the MLA is slim. He said he feels that what the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards does is more important than the APA. ASPPB will write their own act and most states will follow that. The states and state boards are very reluctant to open laws for modifications. He said we should write this like the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures: get a committee to write it, send it out for review to members. President Salas commented that he doesn’t think we have that much time. Dr. Weiss said most of our members are licensed in 3 or 4 states. This doesn’t seem much of a rush.
Dr. Brannick said that if we don’t start defining and communicating, other people will do it for us. Dr. Kraiger said the value of writing a statement is not getting APA to change their MLA but writing down our thoughts on this issue publicly. So rather than come up with a statement on licensing, we come up with a statement on what we believe should be exempt. SHRM and others have already written APA. Dr. Brannick has a copy of the letter they sent and eight other groups have signed on. There was discussion of whether SIOP should stand with these groups or not. There was further discussion of the exemptions currently in the APA MLA. Direct services to individuals and groups are not exempt. It can be hard to draw a line between individuals and organizations. Dr. Kraiger proposed SIOP write a clear statement that says our services are not a threat to the public and our understanding of the MLA is that our services would be exempt. There was general agreement that the problem is a lack of clarity in the act, and ambiguity over what would be exempt. Dr. Weiss suggested using examples of duties of I-Os and telling why they should be exempt.
President Salas summarized that the board believes the MLA does not make sense to SIOP as it is written. The question is whether we try to go back to APA and go through the process of changing their language. We could also do a combination of what the board has discussed: write principles, write a language we are comfortable with, write case studies/examples, etc. But who do we go to with that document? Dr. Locke suggested rewriting the document with case examples and joining with the other organizations to send it to ASPPB along with those other groups. We need to use the power of numbers. President Salas commented that APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs has more energy. Dr. Weiss suggested we get a document that says “this is what we think the MLA means, here is what we think should be exempt, here are examples, etc.” and go to APA first. Dr. Kraiger suggested Dr. Brannick will come back in the morning with an idea of what the statement is and how to say it. The board agreed to continue the discussion the following day.
Salas recessed the meeting at 6:44 p.m. CST.
President Salas called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. CST.
President Salas commented on the fact that the date was 9/11 and asked the board to take a few moments of silence in remembrance.
MLA Task Force (Cont.) Dr. Brannick asked the board for closure on the recommendations on the floor. She proposed that SIOP prepare a 1-2 page statement of our position on the MLA, bringing up some of the issues we have discussed, especially the distinction around individuals versus organizations. We also recognize that each state is going to make their own interpretation and we encourage members to educate themselves about their own state regulations. We will then put our statement out, share it with members, share it with APA, share it with ASPPB. Once that is done and the board looks at it, we need to communicate to ASPPB before their meeting along with forwarding those letters from the other organizations involved.
There was discussion of whether or not to send the opinion to APA. Dr. Weiss suggested we write a statement, show it to APA, and let them agree or disagree. We don’t want to waste energy trying to get this back in front of the council. The statement should include our position on this and our interpretation of this based on our position. Then third, we give examples of people we think would be exempt based on our interpretation of the MLA.
We need to get this to the membership, but ASPPB is coming up for final vote October 13. Dr. Brannick said it seems unlikely that we would have any impact on ASPPB. We could focus on states that are treating us well as I-O psychologists and key states where most of our members are. Dr. Kraiger added that the statement also needs to explain who we are and what we do. Dr. McPhail said we need to make sure the Visibility Committee is plugged in to this. Dr. Brannick also suggested having the State Affairs Committee work on getting information about the states. Dr. McPhail said one of the problems with state boards is that they don’t know how to evaluate I-Os, so we need to give them some standards and examples. If it is not easy for states to determine the standards, they will lump I-Os in with other psychologists.
The board decided to go back to Dr. Tsacoumis’ original motion, which would be to clarify SIOP’s position and share it with APA and the membership. Dr. Kraiger suggested a friendly amendment to the motion: We need to expand the motion to include that “we will communicate our policy with our membership, ASPPB, state licensing associations and state licensing boards.” Tsacoumis accepted the friendly amendment. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved 1.A, the first recommendation, of the MLA task force’s proposal, which calls for SIOP to develop an opinion of APA’s Model Licensure Act, providing a statement of position, clarifying the Society’s interpretation of the MLA, and giving examples of people we think would be exempt based on our interpretation of the MLA, which will then be communicated with SIOP’s membership, ASPPB, state licensing associations and state licensing boards.
The board agreed Dr. Brannick has been doing a good job and that we would continue to use the task force. Dr. McPhail suggested the taskforce speak with Mike Campion. The board moved onto the second recommendation, regarding whether SIOP should collaborate with other organizations whose members do similar work to ours. SHRM has already sent something to ASPPB letting them know how they feel about the MLA. Dr. McPhail said he would be concerned if we were working with organizations we consider to be our competitors since they are not psychologists. Dr. Locke noted that APA will recognize large numbers; we need other organizations’ help. Dr. Brannick said we would not share anything until we had the statement. There was further discussion of whether or not SIOP should form alliances with non-psychological organizations and what this would mean for the future of SIOP.
President Salas suggested postponing discussion until January when either the task force fleshes this out or they hand it to the External Relations Committee and they come back with steps the board can respond to. President Salas said the board would have the statement for the first recommendation by the next meeting and we will get it to our membership. We will postpone discussion of 1B and return to the discussion in January. The board decided recommendation three, 1C, to work with lawyers, would not be necessary at this time and moved on to the next discussion.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS UPDATE
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)
Humanitarian Work Psychology.
Dr. Foster Thompson explained Humanitarian Work Psychology. An example of humanitarian work psychology is corporate social responsibility. There is a group of people who are interested in developing this work more. A global task force for HWP was formalized in June 2009. It consists of a dozen people around the world. The task force has met since then and developed their ideas further. SIOP has invited a session on this. What can SIOP do? At the most recent meeting, the task force said they felt SIOP has already been very supportive by providing a forum for discussion and a TIP
column. Dr. Weiss noted this would make a good book for one of our series. He suggested talking to Allan Kraut. Dr. Foster Thompson; said she would pursue that.
State Affairs Committee Budget.
Dr. Brannick explained that they are asking for more money for the State Affairs budget. Right now we would like money to send one of the co-chairs to each of the ASPPB meetings (two per year) and also to send Chris Steilberg to the October meeting of MLA. Dr. McPhail noted the committee currently has $2,000 in the budget. He is not sure what the intended expenditures for that money are. Assuming the high end of ranges for costs, and that the committee would not need more than $500 for other things, and adding thee costs together for three trips to meetings, they would need $5,300 total. Subtract the $1,500 from their budget and you get $3,800 needed. We have a surplus in our budget of $5,000, but there are other proposals coming to us today with budget requests. This would not be a permanent change in the budget. In the past we have only funded one person going to one meeting. Dr. Brannick motioned to increase the State Affairs Committee budget by $3,800. Dr. Brannick abstained from the vote. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Board increased the State Affairs Committee budget by $3,800.
APA CRSPPP Submission Update.
Dr. Brannick explained that APA needs more information about our application for this. The APA person said this is nothing to be alarmed about. The renewal application is due by the end of the year. She is getting input from committees involved by October 1. Brannick explained the benefits of being a specialty: it gives us more clout as being perceived as the experts.
Adding Science Session to EB Block.
Dr. Allen explained that a program block for the Executive Board has been approved. Six sessions were approved so far. We have a total of 8 hours available. Steve Kozlowski and his task force have requested a session titled “A Strategy for Building an Infrastructure for Science Advocacy within SIOP.” Dr. McPhail moved to approve the session as part of the EB block. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the addition of a science session, titled “A Strategy for Building an Infrastructure for Science Advocacy within SIOP,” to the Executive Board block at the annual conference.
Collaboration with the Human Resource Planning Society.
Dr. Foster Thompson explained that HRPS has proposed a strategic alliance with SIOP. The initial proposal was that SIOP purchase their journal for its members. The price tag was too high. Now they are talking about offering People and Strategy
at a reduced rate. They also would like us to promote HRPS membership to SIOP members. It doesn’t cost us anything. President Salas asked how we handle this with other organizations. Mr. Nershi said this is the first time we have done this. Dr. Highhouse noted that when the Journal of Business and Psychology
had wanted to team up, we didn’t want to appear to be favoring any one journal. Dr. Kraiger suggested HRPS be a conference vendor.
Dr. Saari said that SIOP has struggled with the idea of getting practitioners more access to research. This could be a way of getting online access to practitioners. Dr. Weiss explained that the threat of doing it is that we are not HR. This is I-O psychology. Dr. McPhail explained the balance between the fact that SIOP doesn’t want to get sucked into the larger HR community but that we want to be a leader and be the source of science that affects the practice community. Dr. Brannick said we are associated, from a practice standpoint, with HR professionals. Dr. Kraiger said he is very persuaded by the idea of finding ways to get resources to our members. Is there any way to get this stuff into the practice wiki? We are trying to put things in the practice wiki that helps people get things for their job.
President Salas asked what Dr. Foster Thompson was asking from the board. Dr. Foster Thompson said the HRPS drafted a letter that they suggest we send to members. President Salas suggested postponing this discussion and asking for a set of criteria that lists how to collaborate with any organization that comes to us asking for this. Dr. Kraiger suggested the Electronic Communications Committee, chaired by Dr. Chris Rotolo, to look at this and see how we can provide access journals through electronic communication. Dr. Allen suggested writing an article to appear in TIP that provides suggestions for different ways that practitioners can access journal articles. For example, at many universities, membership in the alumni association includes library access. We could provide that information to our members. Mr. Nershi said he and Dr. Foster Thompson will work on a draft to respond to HRPS.
Dr. Major explained that APA has asked for our input on their convention and how it is managed. They want feedback on how the convention could be more attractive and useful to our membership. Their board will meet in October. We should have something to send by the beginning of October. President Salas noted that we just don’t have a presence at APA. We need to figure out what to do with our hours there. Dr. Major commented that if we don’t decide what to do with them, we might not get to keep them. Dr. McPhail suggested using the hours to educate others in APA about SIOP. Dr. Brannick suggested the External Relations Committee to help with this. Dr. Major asked if the board is comfortable with her soliciting input and sending something to the board later. President Salas said yes. In the long-term, think about how we handle APA and bring something to the board in January or April with strategies or ideas of what to do, how to organize it, etc.
Dr. Major explained the second issue: we used to put questions to the APA presidential candidates that were relevant to SIOP. Is this something we want to do in the future? Dr. Weiss said this is the only place where we can make a difference. Dr. Locke asked what we want from the APA president. Dr. Major suggested someone who is science-oriented. Dr. Weiss added that if we are on their radar screen, we might be able to get more people appointed. Dr. Major said she would come up with some ideas for a timeline of this. Dr. McPhail stated that we don’t have a roster of who is serving on committees at APA. Maybe we should focus more attention on regularizing all the people who are working with APA. Major suggested an APA coordinator. Dr. Locke said Deirdre Knapp would be good for this.
The third issue, Major said, is the leadership conference sponsored by APA for the president-elect. They pay for the person to go. Dr. Colella has already been there. The new president-elect could go. The last issue, Major explained, is that APA passed an action where every state is guaranteed at least one seat without increasing the number of seats. We could lose seats out of this. If we care, we need to encourage Division 14 members who are APA members to vote no. President Salas said we need to know the date and we can draft something up to send to members.
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)
Normative Study of I-O Programs.
This is a benchmarking study. They are asking for $3,200 to fund graduate students. Dr. Kraiger asked what the benefit would be. Mr. Nershi said this is an update to whatever information we already have on I-O programs. Dr. McPhail stated that approval of this would give us a budget deficit of $1,400. Dr. Locke suggested asking this to be resubmitted later.
Dr. Locke motioned to table this item and come back with further information. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. President Salas said that if we table this we could vote again in January or use the Emergency Action Committee to vote on it. It was pointed out that it is not necessary to vote if the board did not want to take action on the matter. The Board deferred action on this item and asked for more information on better coordination with other committees and clarification as to why they need this amount of money and what the benefit of this would be.
High school/college teacher outreach program.
Dr. Saari explained the proposal, which would involve going in and talking to university and high school teachers and educating them about I-O. There would be free attendance or a very low cost. Dr. McPhail noted that this would be a good opportunity for us to share with them what we are all about. They are about to review the standards for high school curriculum. If we want a presence when teachers are teaching psychology, these are the types of kids we would want to recruit. Dr. McPhail explained that if the board votes yes, this would put SIOP in a $2,206 deficit in the budget. That is reasonable. Dr. Kraiger moved to accept the outreach proposal and fund it at a level of $800. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved high school/college teacher outreach program and funding it at a level of $800.
Branding Proposal. Dr. Foster Thompson introduced the branding proposal submitted by the Visibility Committee. This is in response to the concern that there are people or stakeholders we care about who have never heard of us, don’t know much about what we do, or have a wrong idea of what we do. They are asking approval of the branding plan and also permission to request proposals from branding and marketing firms. If approved, we would request funding in January. Mr. Nershi explained that this is building on previous efforts with what we did with Marketing General. A lot of what they did was never implemented. Dr. Kraiger noted that the board didn’t have a lot of confidence with the last firm.
Dr. McPhail asked what data or evidence we have that our brand is in deficit. We have had this belief that no one knows who we are. I don’t find that to be true with people I deal with. Dr. Reynolds explained that there was a study done by Visibility Committee that ran focus groups and ran surveys of what our brand image was. That analysis was used as the starting point for the work with Marketing General. Dr. McPhail said he has not seen much information about how the outside world perceives SIOP or I-Os. Most federal governments and lawyers know who we are. Dr. McPhail said we need to marshal the evidence we have to make an argument for spending this money. He asked if SIOP has tried to market the brand we already have. Mr. Nershi explained the problem is that we do not have a unified brand.
President Salas said he likes the proposal and that it appears to be addressing both science and practice. However, Dr. Weiss remarked that the proposal is all about SIOP and not the practice of I-O. He said he would like more of a distinction between the field of I-O and SIOP. Dr. Highhouse said he would like to see an example of what the committee is striving for. Dr. Reynolds explained that SHRM has been raised as a model as well as some medical and scientific organizations.
Dr. McPhail stated that the committee can do a lot of this on their own and that he is reluctant to pay someone to redo something if we are not sure if we want to keep it. Dr. Locke asked why SIOP and I-O psychologists would want to be better known. Is it for more power, better jobs? Dr. Reynolds explained that it is a vehicle for influence. President Salas agreed, noting that he met with the National Science Foundation two years ago and they didn’t know there was this society with all this experience. Now they recognize us as a specialty and we get more grants. Dr. Colella mentioned that this could also help SIOP in attracting members.
President Salas suggested expanding the timeline for this proposal and bringing more information and a revised proposal back to the board. Dr. Kraiger said it may also be a good idea for Visibility Chair, Dr. Alexis Fink, to come to the next meeting. Dr. Foster Thompson said she would take this back to the committee and also include Dr. Chris Rotolo on the talks.
Update on APS.
President Salas said we continue to have dialogue with APS on what they can do for us. We will come up with a more defined agenda for our visit with them this fall. We are thinking about a new journal that APS would sponsor. We are looking at putting more SIOP members on editorial boards. By January we should have a better update. Alan Kraut was very supportive last fall.
President Salas explained SIOP’s nomination process. It is an open call for nominations, and a list of those nominated for the positions goes to the president-elect, who serves as chair of the Elections Committee. Right next to the name is a number of how many times that name was nominated. The problem is that the committee picks the top people, but we have no formal policy. I have received emails from people who knew they were nominated and wanted to know how names got to the ballot. Some people have gotten the idea that this is a small elite club you have to be in to get on the ballot. Mr. Nershi said the bylaws specify how many candidates are on the ballot, but the Elections Committee can add candidates who otherwise might not have gotten on. Sometimes only one person receives more than one nomination and the committee has to pick amongst the others. Dr. Weiss suggested a policy that says the committee will choose the ballot based on votes. In the case of a tie, the committee will decide the person best fitting. Mr. Nershi said the board can either put this in the bylaws or make a policy. Dr. Weiss motioned to create a nomination policy stating that in each case of nominations, the people with the top number of nominations will be on the ballot. In the case of ties, the Elections Committee will use its discretion to fill out the ballot.Dr. Foster Thomson seconded the motion. All members voted yes except for Dr. Kraiger, who voted no, and Dr. Reynolds, who abstained. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Approved a nomination policy stating that in each case of nominations, the people with the top number of nominations will be on the ballot. In the case of ties, the Elections Committee will use its discretion to fill out the ballot.
Mr. Nershi said we are in the process of a nomination right now. The current call for nominations is open until the 30th. President Salas clarified this will take effect at the end of this month and get this to the membership for the next process. Dr Kraiger said we can postpone the use of this until the next election, but the Elections Committee could utilize this for now and take it into consideration.
Committee Appointment Procedure. Mr.Nershi explained that this came out of issues with SIOP having committee chairs ask members to become chairs-in-training, which is effectively appointing a chair, when the power to appoint chairs is held by the president. Dr. Colella noted we need more serious chair training. Dr. Kraiger explained chair training is at the discretion of the president. For a few years, they just used a handout. President Salas said we need a process for how to suggest chairs to the president. Dr. McPhail said he thinks we need to formalize the chair-in-training procedure and recommended setting up training to discuss the Keesey rules for parliamentary procedure and talk about the budget process. Dr. Colella stated that as incoming president she agrees with this idea. President Salas said all incoming chairs have to attend the April meeting and Dr. McPhail will do his training before that meeting.
Dr. Kraiger asked if a committee wants to add a chair in training, is that in the bylaws? Mr. Nershi said he doesn’t believe it is specifically addressed but that is something Dr. Colella and President Salas can work to appoint. President Salas said he will appoint them, but with the input and decision being made by the president-elect who will oversee them when they are actually on the committee. Dr. Kraiger said this procedure also clarifies that TIP is technically a committee of the society.
Dr. McPhail moved to adopt the procedure. Dr. Locke seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board adopted a committee appointment procedure.
Student Participation on Committees. Mr. Nershi explained that SIOP policy is that only one student can serve on a committee at a time. Education and Training Committee was recently informed of this policy and so they have written up why they feel they should be allowed to have more than one student on their committee. They want us to discuss whether we should continue to limit one student per committee. Dr. Allen asked why it is one student when some committees are larger than others. Mr. Nershi had referred the request to Dr. Hakel and we granted an exception because the committee deals with student issues. There was general agreement that this should continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis and we should keep the current policy. President Salas said the board will keep the policy.
OTHER MATTERS (cont.)
SHRM’s Advocacy Agenda. President Salas asked if SIOP should offer to assist SHRM in their efforts related to their sexual orientation/nondiscrimination statement. Should Dr. Deirdre Knapp’s External Relations Committee develop that relationship? Dr. Weiss asked if there are tax ramifications. Mr. Nershi said no, we are allowed to do this without implications for our non-profit IRS status. President Salas explained that Dr. Knapp would make a phone call to SHRM and say, “If you need our help, we know about this and SIOP could help.” Dr. Brannick asked if the LGBT committee could help. The Board agreed, yes. No formal action taken.
Recommendation of LEC Revamping Committee. Dr.Tsacoumis said she and her group went out and sent a set of questions regarding the LEC to numerous people asking for input. They received about ten responses so far. Dr. Kraiger explained that when we started this Dr. Leatta Hough, who was past president of SIOP at the time, volunteered to help organize it. Then the job of organizing the LEC sort of became the job of the past president. We want this to grow. Why don’t we treat this as an important conference and establish a committee that doesn’t change every year? Dr. Tsacoumis said she will put a report together with the suggestions from her research. President Salas said he doesn’t think this is something the past president should take on, though he or she should have a role. Dr. Kraiger suggested that if the LEC is intended for practitioners, we should have someone to lead it that is a practitioner. Dr. Tsacoumis said she thinks we will change the structure of the committee, but not the purpose of the event. President Salas stated the current LEC is expected to have 130 attendees. Mr. Nershi said he envisioned that this would be continually growing, but it varies based on the topic. We seem to be flat at 150 for attendance in the past few years, so maybe this is the number we should shoot for.
Disposition of Institutional Review Committee. Dr. Allen explained that the board needs a formal vote to accept this policy and also needs to discuss the committee and whether it should continue. There was discussion of whether or not the committee should continue. Dr. Weiss moved to accept the policy proposal of the Institutional Review Committee. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The board accepted the proposed policy of the Institutional Review Committee.
Dr. Allen noted that now the board needs to determine if they will continue the charter of this committee. Allen motioned to continue the committee. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The board voted to continue the Institutional Review Committee.
Bullying. Mr. Nershi explained Dr. Gary Latham’s support of an anti-bullying policy for SIOP. President Salas explained that in the past there have been incidents at the SIOP conference where he or others have seen bullying behavior. Dr. Latham recommends the board draft a paragraph about behavior that we don’t want to have and then create a policy about it. Dr. Locke suggested the policy be phrased positively in terms of respect and civility. Dr. Kraiger suggested the Membership Committee draft something. Dr. Weiss said the policy needs to explicitly state that it is expected that SIOP members treat each other with respect and that this is particularly true in regard to participants interacting with presenters. Dr. Locke added that disagreement in ideas in a polite manner is acceptable, but not incivility. Dr. Colella asked how the policy would be enforced. Can people be asked to leave the conference for breaking it? President Salas answered yes, other societies do it. Dr. Brannick agreed it’s a good idea, but the larger group is doing just fine and may be taken aback by a policy. Dr. Colella noted that most organizations and universities have this type of statement. Dr. Weiss added this is just a statement of our values.
OTHER MATTERS (cont.)
Dr. Saari explained the reviews she completed for the SIOP historian committee and the Committee on Ethnic and Minority Affairs. She talked to the committee chairs. In both cases the committees are coming around well. Both have ongoing initiatives. Neither committee has a large budget. She recommends keeping them. Dr. Tsacoumis moved to accept Dr. Saari’s recommendations. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The board accepted the recommendations of Dr. Saari’s sunset review and will continue the operations of the SIOP Historian Committee and the Committee for Ethnic and Minority Affairs.
Leadership Coaching Consortium.
Mr.Nershi explained that after the coaching LEC there was a group who felt SIOP should develop its own certification program with CCL. CCL would do the training and then people would be certified. This approach was modified and now the board is being presented a proposal for a leadership coaching consortium comprised of the big consulting firms that offer coaching services (RHR, etc.). Members of this consortium would adhere to certain standards in their coaching services. This would be a consortium of organizations. If these organizations adhered to this, they would be able to use the logo of the LCC with the idea that this would become the new standard. They want SIOP to endorse the LCC. Dr. Kraiger noted that there are organizations requiring International Coach Federation (ICF) certification. The ICF seems to have relatively low standards for training, so this is an attempt at a higher standard of coaching standards. President Salas explained that this is also a way to put our arms around coaching as something that we protect. Dr. Highhouse expressed concern at putting our arms around coaching. It makes us very close to performing therapy. Dr. Weiss noted it would be hard for SIOP to exemplify I-O being exempt from the MLA and at the same time get so close to coaching. President Salas suggested postponing the discussion until Dr. David Peterson can be present. Discussion postponed.
President Salas closed the meeting at 12:53 p.m. CST.