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

 Minutes of the Fall 2011 Executive Board

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
September 23-24, 2011 
Hyatt Rosemont Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Members Present:
 Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Deb 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 Leaetta Hough were also present.

Members Absent: None.


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.
Dr. McPhail explained the financial report. We have remained conservatively positioned. We have a little less than 56% of our total in non-equity investments. We had net revenue last year. Reserve funds are in primarily mutual funds, though we have a few corporate bonds and money market cash. We are at 82% of our target goal for our reserve fund. The target is one year’s budget. If we don’t get to 90% within one year we have to create a task force to look into it. We have $1.279 million in the reserves plus what we are putting in this year for $1.4 million total. We will lose $5-8,000 on the LEC potentially this year, according to Mr. Nershi. 
Reconsideration of Reserves Goal. Dr. McPhail explained that when SIOP revised its financial policies in 2009, we stated we would have reserves equal to a one-year budget. We later changed that to a goal. We also mandated that if that goal falls short for more than three consecutive years we would create a task force. One more year from where we are now and we will trigger that provision. We have fiduciary responsibilities not to hold a large amount of cash that belongs to our membership unless it is prudent. Mr. Nershi has gathered information from other organizations. Dr. McPhail looked at the maximum risk SIOP would be responsible for, such as if we were unable to have a conference. We have insurance in case of cancelling a conference. Taking all of this into account, the maximum risk we think we would encounter in case of a cancelled conference would be $580,000 after insurance. If you add in other factors, that number increases to 52.9 % of our goal. If we add a 50% cushion to that, we have a total of $1.373 million, which is 79.4% of the goal. Dr. McPhail suggested SIOP establish 80% of our budget as a reserve goal. If you add our risk and costs, and add a 50% cushion to that, this is what you have. President Colella asked about bench-marking. Dr. McPhail said the normative reserve was only about 45%. Our reserves went up a few years ago because of really good conferences and a good economy. Dr. Thayer said he did a similar analysis for another organization years ago and found that 100% is too much. Dr. Hakel asked if we were to set 80% of the annual budget as the target, would the task force be avoided. Yes. Dr. McPhail said the procedures would be to go to the board if we have reserve funds in excess of 80%. Dr. McPhail moved to change SIOP’s reserve goals to maintain 80% of our budget in reserves. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Board voted to change SIOP’s reserve goal to maintain 80% of the Society’s budget in reserves.
Dr. Thayer moved to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:
·          January board minutes
·          Approval of April meeting minuteso    C
·          Portfolio reports accepted:
o    External Relations Officer: Lori Foster Thompson
o    Communications Officer: Mike Zickar
o    Conferences and Programs Officer: Julie Olson-Buchanan
o    Instructional and Educational Officer: Milt Hakel
o    Membership Services Officer: Lise Saari
o    Professional Practice Officer: Joan Brannick
o    Publications Officer: Scott Highhouse
o    Research and Science Officer: Steven Rogelberg



Research Access Trial Program Results. Dr. Brannick explained that there has been research on price points, journals to include, etc. EBSCO presented four options for payment. The committee recommends that this be an additional cost not included with dues. It will cost SIOP $35,000. We would need 700 people to sign up to pay for it. There is a lot of support on the practice side for this. It could be a potential revenue source for SIOP depending on how many people we get to purchase it. This cost has also not been negotiated yet, just ballpark numbers. We want to keep it at a $50 subscription rate per person. APA charges $149 for access to APA journals. EBSCO does not include access to APA journals. There is desire to not wait to roll this out in the spring. Dr. Brannick said it is hard to predict interest. Based on feedback in the survey, we think 2,300-2,500 members would be likely to take advantage of this. We will make it available to all members. We should know how much it would cost an average person to get access to this. Dr. Brannick said any one of those journals is likely to cost $50 a year or more. This could help with member retention. We could ask former members if this is something that would bring them back. Dr. Highhouse asked if EBSCO can share the risk of us not being able to get 700 people. Dr. Brannick said she would recommend negotiating for a multi-year period. Dr. McPhail said we have excess in the reserve. Even if no one signed up for this, we could cover the cost. President Colella asked if we could make this available to Alliance members through SIOP. There was discussion of whether the absence of APA journals is an issue. No. Mr. Nershi said he is pretty sure we could get $35,000. He will negotiate and then consult with the emergency action subcommittee. Dr. McPhail requested keeping the options open for how members will pay for this. He moved to move forward with the research access proposal to make the EBSCO databases available to SIOP members, pending successful negotiation by the SIOP administrative office.. Dr. Olson-Buchanan seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Voted to move forward with the research access proposal to make the EBSCO databases available to SIOP members, pending successful negotiation by the SIOP administrative office.
Science Advocacy Update. Dr. Kozlowski discussed the taskforce and recommendations. He was asked to explore what the costs would be. We ballparked numbers in April. He has consulted with Mr. Nershi, FABBS and APA’s division 9. The estimate is $100,000-$110,000, including pay. Dave’s estimates are for someone staying in the SIOP office. The others are estimates for having someone in D.C. He also put together a suggested position description. Dr. Salas said the number seemed surprisingly low. Dr. Weiss noted that this person would not be an employee of SIOP. It would be contract work. Dr. Kozlowski said the likelihood of getting someone with a doctorate would probably be low. Generally a person with knowledge and a background in policy fits this role. The Board discussed potential places to recruit. Dr. Weiss said this segues into important discussions we need to have about our goals as an organization. If we want to be a big-time organization, we need to think about dues structure, etc. The purpose is to have this position as well as think about the society we want to be in the next 10 years. Dr. Kozlowski noted that the Executive Director position was an unqualified success. This is a similar step. Dr. McPhail asked if it is possible to purchase these services from an existing organization. Dr. Kozlowski said we have FABBS and APA, but we don’t have a point person. Dr. Hakel also noted that APA and FABBS have virtually no contacts in the Department of Defense or the Department of Labor. Dr. Thayer added that they cannot solely focus on I-O. There was discussion of how this relates to SIOP’s UN NGO and membership in CONGO. Dr. Kozlowski said the charge was science advocacy. We are looking for someone who can connect the expertise with the policy makers. 
Dr. McPhail explained the four theoretical pay models he created under various assumptions. The first model makes the assumption that this initiative is vitally important to the membership and every member. The second assumes this is viewed by practitioners as being primarily oriented toward academicians. The third assumes it has sufficiently apparent value that it can be supported voluntarily. The fourth is that it has value to the society as a whole, but that portions of it should be voluntarily supported by the membership. Dr. McPhail explained the specifics of each plan and the costs over five years. We are not talking about huge dues increases. There was discussion of taking the advocacy position and EBSCO together as member benefits and raising dues enough to cover both costs. If the increase is more than 15%, we would have to go to the members to approve it. Dr. Reynolds said the real issue is whether or not we have the resources to be the kind of organization we want to be. What are the next steps? There is a job description and list of tasks, but we need to think about the outcomes we want. We need to put messages together about the benefits. Dr. Salas said he thinks this should be called a policy position instead of a science position. There was extensive discussion of how this would be funded, including the possibility of dues increases and SIOP shouldering some of the cost. Dr. Reynolds said the EBSCO proposal only benefits some members and we have a principle that only the people who benefit should pay. If we package it as a “bigger, better SIOP,” we may make a case for this. 
President Colella said she will put an ad hoc committee together for January to work on this. There was discussion of how members reacted to dues increases in the past. Dr. McPhail said there were limited comments about the dues increase we did two years ago. Dr. Thayer said he thinks the expansion of our Society into the international field is a good thing to add to this. Dr. Kozlowski said we need to be cautious about making a dues increase for specific services. Members seem to support dues increases. He pays every year, this is where his friends are, and he’s paying much more to other organizations. Dr. Saari noted that students are not becoming members at a rate we would expect. We are flat on our regular members. A dues increase might affect that. Dr. Kozlowski said we should track who our student members are and make it easy to stay. Dr. McPhail suggested calling students when they graduate to upgrade. 
SIOP’s Financial Future. Dr. McPhail explained that the conference has grown as a proportion of total revenue; the conference now provides more than half of SIOP’s revenue stream. Our fees are low compared to other organizations mainly because we have nonmembers attending as well as sponsorships. Mr. Nershi said the rule of thumb is to set your conference costs to pay for the conference and the booth and nonmember income is extra income. If we did that it would exacerbate the concentration of revenue in the conference. Membership dues only account for 20.4% of our income. We also have a substantial cost for staff and rent, utilities, etc. Students pay less than they cost to attend the conference. We are subsidizing their attendance as well as their memberships. It is very clear that a chunk of students join right before conference submissions are due and right before the conference. They may not be becoming members. Dr. McPhail noted that we don’t know where we are losing them to, either. He suspects a large number are going to SHRM. Membership Services Manager Tracy Vanneman and the Membership Committee will start doing exit surveys to gather more information. Workshop revenue is also down. Dr. McPhail said we have been charging a premium for workshops because of the quality, lunches, etc., but we have undermined ourselves by offering cheaper alternatives. Mr. Nershi noted the early Wednesday schedule also makes it difficult to attend them. Dr. Highhouse added that the content of the conference is more geared toward practitioners now. Dr. Rogelberg mentioned a competing source of cheap webinars. Dr. McPhail said we aren’t charging too much for workshops compared to other organizations. 
Membership Dues. Dr. McPhail said our dues look more like a division of APA, not a free-standing society. Of Divisions 5, 13, and 23, our dues are $22 higher than theirs and they are Divisions. On the other hand, our dues are only 40% of the average of ASTD, SHRM, IPMA, and the Academy of Management. President Colella suggested raising dues and then discounting them for people who belong to APA. Dr. Saari said many people don’t know they don’t have to be a member of APA. Dr. Thayer noted that if less SIOP members were members of APA and APS, we would have less influence. Dr. McPhail said there is no current or imminent crisis, but we need to think about the future. He said he is very concerned about the concentration of the source of SIOP’s revenue being the conference. He suggested several options: increase other sources of revenue, such as online CE (online is inexpensive and there are other organizations making a lot of money off this); increase marketing of the SIOP books series; market other possible publications that may address broader audiences; increase student fees at least to the level where they pay for themselves; reduce the timeframe for early registration; consider penalties for late dues payments; and convert more students to members. Dr. Weiss asked about creating a strategic taskforce to handle these suggestions. Do we want to be exclusive or allow large numbers of members? Dr. McPhail proposed a group to look at structuring a strategic look at our financial future. The board discussed long-range planning, and the difficulty of doing this with the current board structure and meeting schedule. President Colella said that for January, we will put a task force together to address the philosophical issue as well as Dr. McPhail’s tactical issues. The committee may include Drs. Salas, Weiss, Hakel, Peterson, and Olson-Buchanan.
Science Advocacy Update. (continued) There was more discussion of long-range planning. There was discussion of the philosophical purpose of SIOP and I-O and whether I-O will always have a place in the field of psychology or whether many people are migrating toward business. President Colella said the task force should consider these questions. She also noted that wants to  have decisions on EBSCO or the policy person by the next meeting. There was discussion of how the policy position would be evaluated. Dr. Kozlowski noted that the Board would need to decide what outcomes they want. Dr. Kozlowski noted that the recommendations the task force provided lay out a set of activities for this role. We may need to broaden this depending on what our goals are. President Colella tasked Dr. Rogelberg with carrying this forward. The goal for the Scientific Affairs Committee is identifying what may change with it becoming a general policy position and identifying outcomes we want from it. Dr. Reynolds suggested this position also involve External Relations Committee. Several portfolios will be involved. 
Two Matters Regarding the Pre-Conference Workshop Content. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said the workshop committee is concerned about perception of commercialism in the workshops, but others want to utilize content from the SIOP book series. They recommend continuing the current policy to not offer workshops that could be perceived as commercial in nature. This came about because a member requested there be a workshop that related to one of the Professional Practice series books. President Colella said she doesn’t think this is the same thing. Nobody makes money off those books. It fits the mission of SIOP to promote those books. Mr. Nershi said there is an opportunity to promote our books at the conference outside of workshops. The issue has been addressed outside of workshops. Dr. McPhail noted that the series’ books tend to be broad in scope and the major complaint about workshops is that they are not specific enough. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said they will continue to follow their policy. Dr. Zickar suggested any such proposal be judged based on the criteria for all workshops. 
Dr. Olson-Buchanan said there is a lot of energy around offering a workshop that does not apply toward CE credit. We would like to do this and carefully market it to let people know it is not CE credit. We want to change that policy. There is no downside, but we could make more money. Dr. McPhail noted that whoever has to write the proposal to get CE from APA will have to specify what things do and do not get CE credit. Dr. McPhail moved to adjust the workshop policy to allow the Workshop Committee to provide workshops that are not suitable or eligible for CE credit. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Board amended the workshop policy to allow the Workshop Committee to provide workshops that are not suitable or eligible for CE credit.
Mr. Nershi distributed the conflict of interest statement. Board members need to sign it annually. 
APA/ASPPB MLA Update and Next Steps. President Colella thanked Dr. Brannick for putting tremendous work into this. We sent our letter to APA about the MLA. We got the response shortly before the conference in April. The last line in that letter was that they recommend we deal with the states on this. APA also says that any policy statement we put out needs to correspond to APA’s opinions or have a disclaimer stating that it is not the APA policy. Dr. Brannick said she thinks APA is reminding us with that sentence that if we are considering something like a certification, it would be against APA rules. She asked whether we should send a thank-you letter. Yes. Dr. Brannick asked if there was any coordination between APA and ASPPB when they were working on their MLAs. There was some representative crossover, but not coordinated. SIOP has been told there is no compelling reason why I-Os should not be licensed and that for legal reasons we should not refer to ourselves as I-O psychologists. States historically have not gone after I-Os for not complying with state licensure laws because they don’t have the resources. They probably wouldn’t go after PhDs but would start with Master’s. They are trying to get consistency about the title and practice of psychology across states. Bottom line: We don’t have a lot of good data on which to make decisions. How many of our members call themselves psychologists or want to? How many are vulnerable? 
Dr. Brannick said the 50th anniversary meeting of ASPPB is coming up. State Affairs wants one board member to attend at least one of these meetings. The State Affairs Committee thinks it would be helpful to have the president or president-elect go to at least one of their meetings. Dr. Reynolds said he will attend the board meeting and one day of the conference. President Colella said it would be a good idea for the president and president-elect to attend this every year. ASPPB folks find it interesting that we have not been more engaged with them, Brannick continued. According to people at the conference, we are the most powerful organization related to psychology that psychologists don’t know about. President Colella said she thinks doing a job analysis of what practitioners are doing is a good idea, but we can’t do it now because of the member survey. Dr. McPhail suggested putting a question about licensure on the dues renewal form. Dr. Brannick said they talked about having Steve DeMeers come here. It would be as beneficial or more so to have one of us go there. Dr. Hakel said waiting too long is where we lost the last fight early on with the MLA development. In the next 5 or 7 years ASPPB may redraft their MLA. Dr. Dr. McPhail said state associations are pushing very hard to protect licensure for doctoral level people only. State associations view themselves as part of what protects them from the charlatans claiming to be psychologists. Dr. Brannick is open to additional comments. What she needs is what is listed as next steps in terms of making our members aware of this information—putting it on the SIOP website, putting it in the licensure section. In January we will talk more about job analysis. President Colella said she wants to make sure that monitoring this at the state level is institutionalized into Dr. Brannick’s role. 
Webcast Proposal. Dr. Brannick explained that the Professional Practice Committee wants to create mini-webinars. The first they recommend to be around professional training. Others might be around member attraction and retention or tying in with visibility. There are other webinars in committees moving forward. The idea of this is to make them free, short (10-15 minutes), primarily focused on practitioner interests. It would also send a message about SIOP’s use of technology. The cost is $1,045 to create five mini-webinars. That would include audio, visual and slides. This could be an opportunity to use the website more effectively to drive members as well as nonmembers to it. President Colella asked if there was potential for revenue. Dr. Brannick said they would look into it in the future. There was discussion of including these on YouTube and possibly making longer ones to be offered for CE credit that would be revenue generating. APA does have requirements for CE credit webinars. One, you need an exam at the end. We shouldn’t charge people for 15-minute webinars. These should be included in SIOP membership. Dr. Brannick said it will be key to define topics that will be of most interest to the audience. She was skeptical of what you can do with fifteen minutes, but there are models. Dr. Zickar moved to go forward with the webinars. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Agreed to move forward with the Professional Practice Committee’s proposal to develop five initial webinars at the cost of $1,045. 
Board adjourned at 7 p.m. President Colella called the meeting to order at 8 a.m. Saturday.
CRSPPP Update. The CRSPPP taxonomy is on the website. We are in the midst of making a resubmission to CRSPPP. How should we proceed? The deadline for comment is Nov. 7. Dr. Brannick said there are 12 criteria we need to meet in order to become a specialty. We have 7 or 8 criterion we need to respond to. A lot of this relates to education and training. Dr. Major said we should respond and review if the taxonomy is problematic. We are trying to change our reputation with APA, and we feel disengaged. We can’t wait until this goes to council to respond. President Colella suggested bringing a past Education and Training chair into the discussion. Mr. Nershi said we can put this on the website and invite responses, which would go to Dr. Hakel. 
Branding Proposal. Dr. Reynolds said we have discussed this for years. The concept is creating a precise definition of what SIOP stands for. It allows us to differentiate ourselves from other organizations. Dr. Foster Thompson explained the committee sent the request for information to six firms. Four responded, one of which is on hold. Some committee members and Administrative Office employees had a conference call to review them a few weeks ago. We were impressed with one in particular, Widmeyer. It is small and experienced with nonprofits. Dr. Reynolds said previously we made the mistake of working with a firm that had a broad base of capabilities. We thought it would help, but they were not brand specialists. Here we know these people deal with branding. The other mistake is that we left the management of the relationship within a committee structure. We should have a cross-section of people who are interested in the issues that could provide guidance for this group. We suggest moving this forward by asking for more specific price quotes to figure out what they could potentially do. We would put together a short addendum to the RFI saying we are specifically looking for price quotes in these areas: discovery phase (history, data collection), development phase (evaluation process?), and launch phase (how do you use it, how to evaluate it). Ballpark we would be in the $20,000-35,000 range for each of those phases. 
There was discussion of linking this work to the Science Advocacy Task Force and of refining our goals. The board would like to see the RFI. Mr. Nershi said it was about determining capabilities, not deliverables. It was an extensive questionnaire asking for the size, leadership, strengths, etc. The RFP would be more specific. Dr. McPhail and Dr. Peterson agreed that we are talking about how to get our message out, but we are not sure what our message is. Mr. Nershi said the purpose of the discovery phase is to help us discover who we are. Dr. Weiss said he doesn’t want an outside firm telling us who we are. If the firm says they cannot help us answer the question of who we are, then we should not move forward past this first phase. Dr. Reynolds suggested giving guidance to write an RFP that is more specific than the RFI and ask for quotes on the tasks, indicating that there are separate phases and the subsequent phases depend on the success of the first discovery phase. Dr. Olson-Buchanan: asked, for the RFP we would be telling them that we don’t necessarily know who we are, but that is part of the challenge? Yes. There was discussion that the Advocacy Task Force would be moving forward answering some of the questions about who SIOP is and wants to be. It was determined that the RFP should go out now rather than wait for the other work to be finished. President Colella told Dr. Reynolds to go ahead with the RFP, circulate it to the board, and then send it out. Dr. Reynolds said we will post the RFI onto the EB wiki site and then we will put an RFP up as well. Visibility committee has ownership of this. At some point we may need to say that this group has served its purpose and move this into a taskforce. 
APA Items. Council Rep Report. Dr. Major said we know that changes are coming to the APA convention. The programming for APA is done in divisions. From this point forward, in 2013, there will be more cross-cut programming and division time may be cut. About 50% of APA members do not belong to states or divisions. Every year there is a Division Leadership conference for the division presidents-elect. In 2013, APA program chairs are also going to be invited. APA is concerned with attracting and retaining early career psychologists (ECPs), people with 7 years out from their PhD or less. They have the same issues we do: a large student membership, but not becoming full members. They are putting ECP-specific positions on boards and committees. In 2012 a small group of ECPs are coming to check it out and giving feedback as to whether this is a good venue for getting leadership from ECPs. In the past there has been a president-elect breakfast at APA. We haven’t had anyone there the past few years. It is going away and being changed to a reception. The president-elect will be invited in the summer of 2012 and they will be asked to invite an ECP of their choice to come with them. Maybe we would want to invite someone who is already there, such as the APA program chair-in-training. 
There is also a mini-membership meeting. APA wants to give divisions a chance to attract the “homeless” APA members to divisions. We would tell who are we, what we do, etc. We would brief the president-elect in April. Even if the president-elect isn’t there, we should send somebody. There was discussion about how to improve the presidential address at the APA conference. There is also a governance project to combat the perception that APA is slow to act, has no sense of accountability, etc. Dr. Major said she realized last year that virtually all divisions and states feel disenfranchised. They’ve invited consultants in. Sandy Shulman is leading. They have a list of success factors, many of which we already do, but we should consider: a longer-term strategy or agenda over time; two distinct groups (finance and strategy); leadership development group to discuss how we develop future presidents. APA has several large initiatives going on. Of those projects, most are aimed at clinical issues. There is an initiative about defining STEM sciences. We want to be one of them, so it is important that we are involved in that. Dr. Kozlowski said the unpleasant news they receive is that psychology has been branded primarily by clinicians. Psychology is not really seen as a science by the public at large. A good part of the science part has really pushed away from APA. Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked, if we call ourselves I-O scientists, we don’t need to be licensed? Dr. Weiss noted that the MLA deals with practice as well. It is anyone who does psychological work. 
Reflections on Serving as Council Rep. Dr. Weiss said he has enjoyed working with colleagues on council. APA is struggling. They don’t represent science anymore and they know it. APA does have a lot of money, but their finances are a problem. Membership and convention revenue are down. Publication revenue is down, too. 70-80% of the revenue that comes into APA is from the publications. APA is really two organizations, not one. It is a science dissemination organization and it is a health provider guild. The science dissemination organization makes all the money and the health provider organization spends all the money. The problem is the model is a dying one because much of the science dissemination business is based on controlling information. We need to ask, what is our connection to this organization? It doesn’t make sense to disengage from APA. Division 14 will not go away without us. The role of the APA rep is just monitoring. Our votes don’t mean much. We need to think about our connection to an APA that is questionable in terms of long-term survival. There was discussion of whether there are other organizations SIOP could align with and whether SIOP should push for more influence in APA. Dr. Kozlowski said it would be useful if APA Council representatives could provide summaries of meetings so we know who they are. Dr. Salas said he is president-elect of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Dr. McPhail asked if we should arrange a session at our conference for everyone who is involved with a committee at APA. President Colella said we will be in contact with APA to get a list of SIOP members.
Creation of the Conference Consortia Chair. Dr. Olson-Buchanan explained that they want to establish a chair position to help coordinate the three conference consortia. They would sit on the conference committee and attend one of the two meetings that occur before the conference. This would allow for greater coordination and continuity. Dr. Hakel moved to establish the Conference Consortia Chair. Dr. Brannick seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Board voted to create a Conference Consortia Chair. 
President Colella noted that chairing those consortia is a really good leadership development position. She asked the board members to please remind everyone that the president will appoint the next round of committee chairs. This chair would be part of the conference committee. Mr. Nershi reminded the Board of the list of committee sunset reports due in January. He will provide a list of questions that are supposed to be answered. 
Proposed Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior. Dr. Saari explained that this started about a year ago as a bullying statement. She interviewed a lot of people. It became apparent that these things do exist and there is no policy. Research shows that if you don’t have any kind of policy, you can’t really point to it to do anything against bullying. It really deals with repeat offenders. If approved, this would become policy and go into the administrative manual. It would also be publicized in conjunction with the conference. Several members felt it was unnecessary to include in the program. Dr. Hakel suggested putting it in TIP and on the website. There was agreement the whole document should go online with a short line about it in the program. Dr. Saari explained there is language that says what the consequences would be for violators. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said just having a conversation behind the policy would most likely stop any problems. President Colella said the person with a complaint has to be willing to provide names and details. It would be good to get a corroborating source and then bring it to the Executive Board. Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested a mass email of the policy so all members are notified. Dr. Reynolds suggested putting the preamble in TIP. Dr. Saari said the policy gives the Board discretion. Dr. McPhail moved the adoption of the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior as a policy of SIOP. Dr. Weiss seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior.
Membership Trends, Insights and Recommendations. Dr. Saari explained that the numbers of members vary dramatically throughout the year, so even a status count can vary around the year. We have no trending or insights to help the board make decisions. She met with Kizzy Parks and others in CEMA and the Membership Services Portfolio cluster. They all wonder why we don’t look at ethnicity trends. We recommend this should be done on an annual basis. We should understand what our composition is and what our trends are and summarize major findings in a report. We’ve seen a lot of growth, but it has all been from students that don’t necessarily upgrade. At most, we think 1 in 5 students after graduation become a member or associate members. Why? Cost, time commitment to the application process, recent graduates of masters programs wonder if there is a value to becoming an associate. There was discussion of whether we could allow associate members to vote after a certain number of years of membership. 
In terms of tracking ethnicity, right now it is an open-ended question and needs to be hand-coded. Most of our membership identifies as white. We believe our students of color are upgrading at a lower rate than anybody else. This makeup is not the reality of the workplace. Dr. Saari said they recommend a specific point in time to take measurements like this. June 30 is the highest point (before the July 1 dues cutoff) of membership. She said they recommend that there is a report of those statistics every year at this meeting. Dr. Saari moved accept recommendation #1 of the SIOP Membership Services portfolio cluster to provide a trended and more comprehensive view of membership data to the SIOP Executive Board. Dr. Reynolds asked if we know how many students are in online-only programs. Dr. Saari said no, but we want to add it (recommendation #3). Dr. Weiss seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Passed recommendation #1 of the Membership Service Portfolio to provide a trended and more comprehensive view of membership data to the SIOP Executive Board using statistics gathered on June 30 of every year.
There was discussion of why SIOP requires applicants to be members of APA, APS, CPA or EAWOP. People are concerned we will lose psychology without that provision. The idea is also to maintain a number of seats on APA council. Dr. Peterson noted that they do all of the background work to establish that someone has a PhD, is from an accredited program, etc. so we don’t have to. There was discussion of offering a free one-year membership for those who have just earned an I-O degree. Mr. Nershi asked how we would decide what institutions could do this. Would online programs be granted this same privilege? Dr. McPhail explained that because most of SIOP’s growth has been in students, if we automatically give people a free membership we are increasing membership by 50%. Are we going to change the character of our membership? Dr. McPhail suggested a reduced rate for recent graduates. There was discussion of how to fast-track students from certain programs and having a separate application for different schools. Dr. Weiss proposed an amendment to take out the “accredited” terminology. The Board agreed everyone should fill out a basic application for professional membership. The committee would allow the most qualified to go through without further documentation and the others would get a follow-up asking for references, publications, etc. Dr. Olson-Buchanan moved to approve the first three bullet points under the SIOP Membership Services cluster recommendation #2 (to encourage more students to become professional members), which includes streamlining the application process for student affiliates, fast-tracking student affiliates form accredited I-O programs who want to be professional members, and automatically sending an email to student affiliates at their expected graduation to determine whether they have graduated and inviting them to become professional members, while removing the references to accreditation. Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the first three bullet points under the SIOP Membership Services cluster recommendation #2 (to encourage more students to become professional members), which includes streamlining the application process for student affiliates, fast-tracking student affiliates from accredited I-O programs who want to be professional members, and automatically sending an email to student affiliates at their expected graduation to determine whether they have graduated and inviting them to become professional members, while removing the references to accreditation.
There was discussion of whether or not the requirement or the lengthy review process makes people less likely to apply for membership. Dr. Hakel suggested the Membership Committee consider opening membership to everyone whether or not they are psychologists. President Colella said we are going to need more data to discuss what is going on with associate members. Dr. Saari said the exit surveys will help. Dr. Reynolds asked if the group can consider other criteria plus time for Associates to get voting rights. Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested an affiliate membership for non-psychologists. We could lump this with the Associate status and drop the APA/APS requirement. Dr. McPhail said we could pull the International Affiliates in. This brings up questions of our identity. Are we psychologists affiliated in a society or are we a society run by psychologists with others underneath us? In regards to demographic questions, Dr. Saari said we need it as part of the online membership application instead of solely in Contact Update. There was discussion of collecting information about online programs. Dr. Saari said we will look into it. President Colella said we need to start addressing why minorities are not upgrading. Our student population is more diverse than the general population. This rapidly drops for Members and Associates. Maybe something should be done to get diverse populations within SIOP and do things to encourage them. She tasked Kizzy Parks with this. 
Board went into executive session to discuss the recommendations of the Awards Committee. After the Board returned to regular session, Dr. Reynolds moved to accept the Awards Committee recommendations in total. Dr. Weiss seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Hough asked if anyone can help her in developing recommendations to improve the awards program. Subcommittee chairs can help with this. 
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the recommendations of the SIOP Awards Committee.
Foundation. Dr. Hakel said there are two possible additional awards on the agenda. Dick Jeanette’s potential award is likely to enter the awards program in the coming year. This is an award recognizing research and practice dealing with work and worker assessment. We will come back in January with a memorandum of understanding. Dr. Hough noted that the more differentiation between the awards, the better. We may be giving two awards to one person. Dr. Hakel said this would be different than the current award for research in job analysis. The second award is a collaborative award involving SHRM. Organizers want an award from the two organizations based on research on the ground. It may not carry a cash award of any kind. The board discussed whether they should give “dry” awards. Should we work with organizations outside SIOP for awards? Board members should let Dr. Hakel know their thoughts. Dr. Hough commented on the amount of work the committee chair entails. To share the workload, a chair-in-training came to mind. There was discussion of how many awards SIOP and the Foundation should give and whether we could let donors know we prefer a scholarship instead of an award. Dr. Saari said she would love to see SIOP have scholarships for students who can’t afford a PhD. Mr. Nershi said even the cost of the conference would help. Dr. Zickar moved to establish a chair-in-training position for the Awards Committee. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Established a chair-in-training for the SIOP Awards Committee. 
Consultant Locater/Online Community Project. Mr. Nershi noted that Consultant Locator was sunsetted in its original form. Electronic Communications Committee went back to see if there was another way to serve this need. We came up with an enhanced profile for SIOP members with certain information that could be shared publicly. We’ve researched online communities. It would be branded as a member benefit. We could house the consultant locater as well as the learning center there. All the social media would be included. It would enhance communications. Committee would have areas. Special groups could have areas, too. It could take collaboration to another level. It needs to integrate with our database. We hope to come back in January with a solid proposal. 
Report on 2017 Conference Site Selection. Mr. Nershi said we have looked at properties in Orlando for the 2017 conference. We are also visiting Washington and Boston. Trips are scheduled in San Antonio and Denver for 2018. We’ve been working with a third-party site selection company that doesn’t cost us anything. Dr. Hakel asked if Chicago has been put on the list for the 2018 conference. Mr. Nershi said no, but we can mention it. 
Hawaii Conference Marketing. The 2014 conference is in Honolulu. We would like to begin marketing it now, “Save-the-Date” type of stuff. We will talk about the benefits of attending the conference. We are arranging for pre- or post-conference rates on Maui. 
Program Advance Task Force. When we moved to the three-day conference we developed a task force to identify how to transition. To take some of the year-to-year negotiation away from the Program Chair, we will need to reexamine the theme tracks, how we allot time, etc. by early 2012. Mr. Nershi said these changes would be implemented for the 2014 conference. This group could take a look at Hawaii, and that’s a special case. They can look at the schedule and maybe shorten the conference hours. It’s suggested that we may want to appoint a task force to do this work. Dr. McPhail moved for the creation of the SIOP Conference Program Advance Task Force. Dr. Olson-Brannick seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Approved a SIOP Conference Program Advance Taskforce. 
Dr. McPhail said he suspects people who are getting funding from employers to attend will have a harder case to make to go to Hawaii. He is hoping we can reduce costs or find ways to help people explain why they should be able attend. Mr. Nershi said giving scholarships to students is an idea. We are particularly worried about students. Marketing to the Pacific Rim countries was mentioned. We are going to set up a committee working group on that topic. Dr. Weiss said the extended vacation angle is good because it might encourage more non-student members to attend. It is in the third week of May. Dr. Major said APA’s conference is in Honolulu in 2013. 
CONGO Application. President Colella explained that John Scott needs a $300 application fee to sign SIOP up for the CONGO (Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations) group, which will facilitate using our NGO status. Dr. McPhail moved to pay the $300 application fee. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Board agreed to pay $300 for SIOP’s CONGO application fee.
OTHER MATTERS (continued)
Dr. Hakel said the Alliance will meet next in November in Bologna, Italy. The Alliance has no budget. No cost to SIOP or members. We want to keep it lean and fast-acting. There will be a  few Alliance related programs in San Diego. It was noted that SIOP has had a memorandum of understanding with the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology of South Africa (SIOPSA) for a number of years now. They are trying to get something in the program to meet with the president of the South African SIOP. Dr. Brannick summarized that she will be getting back to Professional Practice about EBSCO. There had been discussion about doing a study to get a better idea about practice, what our members are doing. President Colella said to tell them yes, but they couldn’t start until probably April because of the membership survey. 
President Colella adjourned the meeting at 1:38 p.m.