Minutes of the Fall 2008 Executive Committee Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
October 18 and 19, 2008
Members Present: Tammy Allen, Talya Bauer, Janet Barnes-Farrell, Robert Dipboye, Deirdre Knapp, Kurt Kraiger, Gary Latham, David Nershi, Ken Pearlman, Eduardo Salas, Lois Tetrick, Donald Truxillo, Suzanne Tsacoumis
Members absent: Jose Cortina
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Latham called the meeting to order at 3:00 EDT. He made three opening comments.
1. This will be the last meeting with members Robert Dipboye, Ed Salas, and Janet Barnes-Farrell. President Latham expressed appreciation for their advice, thoughtful input, and service to SIOP.
2. President Latham has been working with teams since 1969 and he believes that the EC represents one of the best teams he has had the privilege of working with. He is full of respect for the good discussion, diversity of opinions expressed, and conclusions reached.
3. Sometimes stars align in the right way. President Latham’s election as SIOP President co-occurs with his term on the SHRM board and with that of his colleagues who are presidents of EAWOP and IAAP-Division 1. This has resulted in great cooperation and synergy.
One goal of Dr. Latham’s presidency was to replicate the Leading Edge conference at U. of Toronto. This was accomplished. The event required minimal effort by President Latham or by Mr. Nershi. The executive education group at U. of Toronto ran the event. The fee was $1000 a head. The event cleared about $28,000, which was split between U. of Toronto and SIOP. Attendees were mostly mid- to upper-level managers.
The program on innovation will be repeated again at U. of Toronto and potentially at several other universities (e.g., University of Washington, UCF).
The coaching conference may also be rolled out in the same way.
Dr. Kraiger asked how many times the conference can be replicated before the speakers get burned out. President Latham indicated that different speakers can be used, and they get paid for their presentations.
Dr. Tetrick noted that a group at the University of Maryland and George Mason may do a spin off of the coaching conference.
Dr. Pearlman reviewed the financial report. An outside auditing firm gave SIOP a clean bill of health.
Previous Year’s Financial Results. For the first year in the last several, we showed a net loss. The majority of this is a paper loss in our investments because of the decline in the U.S. stock market. Our investments were down by about the same rate as the overall market. However, we did have a real net program loss of about $40,000 (the difference between how much income we generated and how much we spent). We did better than our budgeted income numbers but costs were also higher than expected. There are several reasons for the loss.
1. The conference in San Francisco cost more than we budgeted.
2. There was a loss on the Leading Edge Consortium last year. It was not as big of a hit as the previous conference.
3. We entered into an agreement with Marketing General with an expense of $70,000.
4. We are absorbing expenses associated with the IOP journal. Wiley-Blackwell charges $12 for professional members and $6 for students. When we passed the dues increase and financial plan, we only increased dues by $5 so the costs are not offsetting. This was done knowing we would take a loss and that we could consider another dues increase in the future.
Proposed Budget. We expect a budget deficit of $38,000. Several of our strategic initiatives represent new costs (e.g., the IOP journal, working with Marketing General). We are being conservative with regard to expected conference income and investment income projections.
With regard to the shortfall, Executive Director Nershi noted that we must decide if we want to only offer great services to our members when Wall Street is doing well or do we want to consistently provide great services. There are some actions we could take to reduce costs now, such as holding the EC meetings by teleconference, but this could impact the quality of our services.
Wiley-Blackwell has not provided subscription numbers yet with regard to the new journal. It will likely be several years before we realize a significant income stream from the IOP journal. There is a subscription number threshold before we begin sharing revenue. We have a 7-year agreement with Wiley.
Projected attendance for the 2009 annual conference is 4100. Dr. Truxillo noted that we might consider revising that number downward given that economic trends may impact people’s ability to attend the conference. This type of effect was found after 9/11.
Executive Director Nershi noted that conference fees have been raised. Student fees have increased by $15 and member fees have increased by $5. There has not been an increase for non-members. The cost per attendee to the conference is $140. The greater increase for students was because at the current rate we lose considerably more money per student. At the conference last year we had 1,200 students. Workshop fees are the same.
Submissions to the conference were good. If in January, the economy continues to look poor, we can make adjustments in terms of food for the conference. The guaranteed room block is the potential problem. Given that New Orleans is a big draw, it is hoped that conference attendance will remain strong.
Dr. Dipboye asked about the justification for the increased JobNet budget. Mr. Nershi replied that one major project for the next year is to re-do Job Net. It is currently a very basic tool that has not kept up with more advanced job tools such as Monster. It has generated a $125,000 income each year for virtually no investment. We intend to invest some money into it to improve revenue and to ensure the quality of the program is on par with programs such as Monster.com and CareerBuilder.com.
Dr. Kraiger inquired about our reserve policy. Dr. Pearlman replied that our policy is to have approximately one year’s worth of operating expenses in reserve. We have that now. Our reserves are tied to three buckets: strategic projects reserve, technology and equipment reserve, and emergency reserve. The size of our reserve fund is large relative to other non-profit associations, most of which carry a 3- or 6-month reserve, if any. Also, a substantial proportion (over 40%) of our investments are in bonds.
Dr. Pearlman expressed that he was comfortable with the current budget. We knew we were going to run a loss initially with the journal. We have the option of increasing membership dues at a later time if judged necessary.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to accept the proposed budget. Motion seconded by Dr. Knapp. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: 2008-2009 budget approved.
One additional financial item of business required action. The firm that administers the SIOP employee 401K plan requires that it be publicly stated how the funds will be disbursed each year. There are no changes to the plan, but the plan must be read and approved by the executive committee.
Dr. Pearlman read the statement that involved the amount to be allocated to the SIOP employees.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to approve the executive committee resolution that pertains to the administration of the SIOP employee 401K plan. Motion seconded by Dr. Bauer. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: SIOP Employee 401K plan approved.
Dr. Kraiger reported on the implementation of the governance restructure plan. By way of review, under the new governance structure there will be 8 elected executive board positions. The Secretary position has been eliminated. The three existing committee members (Drs. Allen, Tsacoumis and Truxillo) have selected portfolio officer positions. President Latham appointed Drs. Christina Banks and Jim Outtz to one-year terms. These positions will come up for a vote after one year. The three remaining positions will be on the ballot this year.
In April the new board takes office.
Dr. Kraiger appointed a restructuring taskforce that was headed by Lisa Finkelstein. One task of the committee was to take the job of secretary and determine how to distribute those tasks. Mr. Nershi will bring someone from the AO staff to meetings to record minutes. One remaining issue is what to do with regard to the secretary’ report that appears in TIP. After a brief discussion, it was decided that the Communications Officer will be tasked with writing a brief summary of the meeting minutes to appear in TIP.
The second task of the committee was to examine the different existing committees and assign each committee to one of the portfolios. This needed be done while also considering balancing the workload across portfolios. We need to determine if we want to make any adjustments to the assignments.
Discussion ensued regarding the advocacy role and where it fits. Advocacy tasks fit under different portfolios.
There was some discussion that we could have a champion or a small committee charged with advocacy. A point person could build synergy around the different portfolios. For advocacy we need to figure out how it is that the work gets done.
Dr. Kraiger noted that he would like to approve the current tasks without putting advocacy into a single portfolio. We are not ready to fold advocacy into a single spot at this point. Discussion to continue tomorrow on advocacy.
It was suggested that visibility move from the External Relations portfolio to the Communications portfolio. Visibility is about communicating messages whereas External Relations is about building and maintaining relationships. In addition, the Communications portfolio was relatively light.
Dr. Salas asked about the budget implications for these new assignments. Dr. Kraiger replied that as in the past a motion could be made to the cluster coordinator who would present it to the EC. Now committee chairs can make a motion with the portfolio officer.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to accept the proposed officer with portfolio assignments with the change of moving visibility from External Relations to Communications. Motion seconded by Dr. Dipboye. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Officer assignments and portfolios accepted.
Motion made by Dr. Dipboye to accept the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda accepted.
Federation. President Latham reported that his meeting went very well with the Federation. The new Executive Director seems very responsive to SIOP concerns. We just need to ask.
Dr. Knapp suggested that we be proactive in working with them and prompt them to let us know what they need from us. They have a small staff.
APA Council. Dr. Barnes-Farrell reported that the Council Reps primary concern was making sure that there was input from our division on important taskforces.
President Latham had very pleasant and effective discussions with Dr. Bray. The outcome is that we now have Drs. Joan Brannick and Sandy Shullman as members of the Future of Psychology Practice project. In addition, Dr. Bray will be the first President of APA to give an invited address to SIOP. Dr. Latham noted that he interprets Bray as extremely sincere. Dr. Bray knew very little about Division 14. Dr. Bray would like Division 14 to take the mike at council meetings and make their views known. President Latham believes that we have Dr. Bray’s respect and his ear.
Dr. Knapp reported that the amendment on the torture resolutions passed despite our effort to have it fail. Our energy now is directed toward having some input on how that amendment gets put into business. Details regarding the amendment are now being worked out. Dr. Barnes-Farrell agreed that we need to have a voice on the resolution. The leader of this resolution is now running for APA presidency.
President Latham noted that he received several emails regarding the email that was sent to members providing guidance on the upcoming APA election. Some were appreciative of receiving the recommendation, and some were not pleased. Dr. Pearlman noted that this was different from what we have done in the past because it was intermingled with the issue that APA presidential candidate Reisner was championing. Politics was folded into it. Dr. Barnes-Farrell noted that when we have given guidance in the past it has been in the form of endorsing people. In this case we were in essence “unendorsing” someone.
Dr. Knapp reported that there is an APA ballot with the names of individuals nominated for committees. There are multiple SIOP members on the ballot.
International Cooperation Agreement with EAWOP and IAAP. An agreement between SIOP, EAWOP and IAAP-Division 1 has been brokered that includes discounted cross-membership rates, conference registration fees, and journal rates. IAAP-Division 1 has approved the agreement and EOWAP is expected to approve it at its November EC meeting.
Motion made by Dr. Salas to approve cooperation agreements between SIOP, EAWOP, and IAAP-Division 1. Motion seconded by Dr. Tetrick. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: International cooperation agreement between SIOP, EAWOP, and IAAP-Division 1 approved.
Awards Committee Recommendations. Dr. Bauer presented a summary of the Awards committee recommendations on behalf of Dr. Boswell.
Motion made by Dr. Bauer to accept the recommendations with one exception to be further discussed. Motion seconded by Dr. Dipboye. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award Committee recommendation accepted.
Discussion on exception case shelved until tomorrow.
Emerald Publishing Sponsorship of SIOP Award. Emerald Publishing would like to sponsor a research award at SIOP. Emerald publishes the Journal of Managerial Psychology. The award would come with a $600 honorarium and the article would be published in the journal pending a review of subject matter experts.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to accept the offer from Emerald and arrange to have an award in their name consistent with their proposal. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas.
Dr. Bauer asked what would happen if additional journals approached SIOP with requests to offer additional awards. Discussion resulted in the sentiment that we need to clarify what strings are attached to the award before we accept. We need to first develop a policy regarding people who come to us for awards and make sure that it works to SIOP’s best interest. As chair of the awards committee, Dr. Boswell is being charged with working out details on the development of such a policy.
Motion was withdrawn.
MARKETING GENERAL PRESENTATION
Mr. Nershi introduced two representatives of Marketing General (MG). A presentation was delivered that focused on MG efforts regarding brand development and survey results. MG works with professional associations. They have been charged with the task of helping SIOP with brand identification.
Through MG efforts several articles featuring SIOP have appeared in publications by SHRM, APA Monitor, CollegeWire press service, etc. MG’s role was to contact them, nurture the relationship, and help write the articles. Someone from the magazine would contact SIOP members for assistance to complete the article if needed. Staff members in the SIOP AO work with MG. People in the SIOP office help write the articles and contact SIOP members as needed for more information.
Dr. Salas asked the presenters, if you were SIOP president, what are the 2 things you would do.
The reply was that, in everything we do, it must do something that bridges science and practice. Whenever there is a panel, there should be both types of members involved. There should be a vehicle for putting researchers and practitioner together on what is hot, what matters. We should look for one or two really break through opportunities.
Meeting adjourned by President Latham at 7:10 pm EST.
Meeting called to order by President Latham at 8:02 am EST.
Awards. The remaining award from yesterday’s meeting was discussed.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to accept final Award committee recommendation. Motion seconded by Dr. Allen. Motion passed with five in favor and four abstentions.
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation of Awards committee accepted.
Dr. Bauer will pass along recommendations and suggestions regarding the awards process and criteria to Dr. Boswell.
Communications. Dr. Tetrick requested that one hour of the available EC program block be given to the Electronic Communications committee. The committee needs program time to interact with members and find out what sorts of items we need communicated. There is a need for them interact with members and get some face-to-face time. This will help drive the development of what the committee will do.
Motion made by Dr. Tetrick to give the Electronic Communication committee one hour of program time. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: One hour of EC program block provided to Electronic Communications Committee.
Dr. Kraiger stated that advocacy has not moved forward to the same extent as other initiatives. We need to have a plan to ramp up advocacy efforts. The following plan was proposed. An ad hoc committee will be formed. The committee will develop a list of 4-5 topics to pursue. The committee will provide a report of these topics to the EC for discussion at the winter meeting. After feedback from the EC, the committee will report again in April with specific tasks and an action plan. Another report back will be provided 9 months later. The committee will be charged with suggesting a structure makes the most sense moving forward from that point. They will make recommendations for institutionalizing the process.
It was pointed out that other individuals are currently engaged in advocacy related efforts (e.g., Judy Blanton with state affairs). There is no intent to take tasks away from groups that are already doing engaged in an advocacy effort.
Practice. Mr. Nershi noted that a group from the Professional Practice committee had an article in TIP that included recommendations to various groups. The recommendations were presented to the membership without advance communication to the administrative office or to the EC.
President Latham tasked Drs. Pearlman, Knapp, and Tsacoumis to join him in conducting a careful review of both the MG and the practice committee reports. At the February meeting, practice will be a major discussion topic. There are lots of good ideas in these reports. We want to figure out what are the high priority items.
Leading Edge Consortium. There were approximately 172 registrants. Dr. McHenry was general chair. There was a registration slow down when the economy began its meltdown. However, the number of registrants is up from last year.
Dr. Knapp noted that people seemed to really like the conference. Dr. Tetrick noted that the feedback was mixed. The quality of programming was not consistent. Some presentations were dry. Dr. Kraiger commented that participants liked the open space format. However, there were concerns regarding some of the science content.
Dr. Tetrick noted that one issue that came up is the certification of coaches. Some people are being excluded because of certification standards.
President Latham presented two information items.
1. He has spoken to the dean at U. of Toronto and they will likely repeat the coaching session for the business community. Several other universities will also be approached (e.g., UCF, U.W., Tulane, George Mason, Michigan State).
2. He may talk with the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) about a 5-day program in certification. SIOP might partner with CCL. The program would be open to anyone who is a member of APA. Gary was on the board of CCL for two terms.
Dr. Knapp asked if that gives CCL an unfair competitive advantage if there are other viable partners. President Latham asked that other viable partners be brought to his attention.
Conference. Everything is moving forward. The two theme tracks are 1) evidenced-based management and 2) corporate responsibility.
There will the opportunity to engage in a service project that involves refurbishing a library damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Target is a sponsor.
Several invited speakers have been secured, including Drs. Steve Kerr and Peter Gollwitzer.
We will continue with a closing reception on Saturday. The Bucktown All-stars, the best band in New Orleans, will provide musical entertainment. There will be dancing! Our location is a couple of blocks from Bourbon Street.
Report on Future Annual Conference Sites. The list of potential sites that Dr. Cornwell assembled for the annual 2014/2015 conferences were reviewed. We are in the process of selecting for 2014. Many sites have been eliminated for various reasons such as location, lack of facilities, etc. There is a short list.
Timeline: By November, site inspections will occur at short list properties. A recommendation is to be finalized by the end of this calendar year. Booking earlier gives us more leverage. Honolulu, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, and Phoenix are high on the short list.
Future conference list: 2010 Atlanta, 2011 Chicago, 2012 San Diego, 2013 Houston.
Publications Board. It was proposed that a publications board of approximately five people be established to oversee SIOP’s journal and book series. We have selected multiple new editors for our different publications such as TIP, IOP, Frontiers Series, etc. Currently we have no one overseeing activities such as editor selection on a day-to-day basis. The President will establish a publications board. This board will fall within the Publications Officer portfolio under the new governance structure and officer will serve as a member of the board.
APS Program Chair. Dr. Kraiger outlined a proposal that would extend the role of the APS program chair from one year to two years. This is to help ensure continuity with the role.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to extend the role of the APS program chair from one year to two years. Motion seconded by Dr. Pearlman. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Role of the APS Program Chair extended from one year to two years.
Study Abroad. An E&T subcommittee has been formed to investigate study abroad opportunities. The committee has developed a list of recommendations. As reported by Dr. Tsacoumis SIOP will provide specific resources such as posting study abroad opportunities on the website.
Dr. Tetrick noted that as they stand the recommendations are all one-sided. What are EOWAP and IAAP-Division 1 going to do? President Latham noted that whatever SIOP is asked to do, so
should EOWAP and IAAP. It is important that the international opportunities are two-way.
Motion made by Dr. Tetrick to approve the subcommittee recommendations with the contingency that IAAP- Division 1 and EOWOP establish websites. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Study abroad recommendations approved with contingency that IAAP- Division 1 and EOWOP provide the same resources as those provided by SIOP.
CEMA Best Paper Award. The Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA) has requested that a conference best paper award focusing on ethnic minority issues in the workplace be created. Discussion included issues related to how the award winner was to be selected. CEMA may follow the process in place for the LGBT paper award. CEMA will be directed to work with the Awards committee and SIOP Foundation to finalize the details of the award process and the financial aspect.
Motion made by Dr. Bauer to accept the concept of a CEMA SIOP best paper award. Motion seconded by Dr. Tsacoumis. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: CEMA award concept approved.
Cross-advertising Proposal. Dr. Bauer presented a proposal by the Academy of Management to cross-advertise. The target audience is doctoral students in I/O and HR/OB/IR programs. The aim is to encourage students to become members of both associations. The ad features the names of individuals who are Fellows of both SIOP and the Academy of Management. There is no cost to SIOP. There are benefits to energizing students to become involved in scholarly societies early. HR graduate students can become members of SIOP as long as they are sponsored by a SIOP member. Several members noted that they did not think the message of the advertisement was clear. Feedback will be conveyed to Dr. Colella suggesting that the ad be more straightforward and mention the benefits of joining.
Motion made by Dr. Bauer to accept the proposal to cross-advertise with the Academy of Management HR Division. Motion seconded by Dr. Truxillo. Motion passed with three in favor, one against, and three abstentions.
ACTION ITEM: Cross-advertisement between AOM and SIOP approved.
Women’s Council. Mr. Nershi reported that there was a request by a student member to form a women’s council. The issue was discussed via email prior to the EC meeting and the sentiment was that SIOP did not wish to splinter into special interests groups. However, to foster interaction and discussion of the topic, a Community of Interest session on the topic of women’s issues in I-O psychology will be held at the 2009 annual conference.
Disaster relief. Dr. Truxillo reported on our continuing partnership with Division 13 with regard to disaster relief. A proposal has been submitted to APA for funding. A memorandum of understanding has been created, which Division 13 has already approved. Per prior email discussion prior to the meeting, the EC requested several changes to the initial memorandum. SIOP will pay for the first year fees and then split all costs 50/50 for each subsequent year. The President of SIOP will always be part of the joint committee. APA is interested in learning more because they have found that when people need counseling, there are often business issues so they would like to be able to refer them to us.
The emergency response committee can now be dissolved.
Foundation Update. Dr. Pearlman reported that there was no news to report.
Next EC Meeting. The dates for the Winter EC meeting are February 6-8 at the Sheraton in New Orleans.
Dr. Kraiger brought up the issue of sunsetting committees. With the transition plan there are new structures and we need to determine what might be up for sunsetting. This will be put on the agenda for the next EC meeting.
Sponsorship of California Psychological Association (CPA) Business & Psychology Conference.
Dr. Blanton submitted a proposal for SIOP to co-sponsor an event aimed at providing Silicon Valley business executives with information regarding how psychology can help business. The name of the event is, “Top Minds and Bottom Lines – Partnering with Psychology for Success.”
The target audience for the event is about 50 executives from high tech firms in the Silicon Valley. The idea is to promote psychologists to business leaders. The CPA has agreed to contribute $6,000. Hewlett Packard is providing in kind support. CPA would like SIOP to cosponsor the event to lend credibility and money. Mr. Nershi proposes that SIOP contribute $2,500. If we co-sponsor we can have more say in the programming.
Dr. Dipboye noted that the event showcases psychology, but most of the people identified are not identified with psychology. They are in B-schools. Is this going to accomplish what it sets out to accomplish? Mr. Nershi noted that this was a tough audience to get to and that it was necessary to find people appealing enough to bring in the business leaders.
President Latham was adamant that it should be explicit up front that this is in part a SIOP event. As an example, when the Leading Edge consortium was kicked off at U. of Toronto, SIOP was mentioned frequently. The SIOP name needs to be up front and an explanation provided of what SIOP does at the event.
Dr. Pearlman noted that we want to make sure that someone from the Visibility committee is involved and that everything is on message and helps to build our brand. What Division 14 members will be there? The committee is large; perhaps there is someone local who can attend the event. Dave will talk to Dr. Blanton with regard to specifically what was done at Toronto. Dr. Tetrick noted we should make sure that there is SIOP material there. Mr. Nershi suggested that we can think of this as a pilot. It is an innovative idea that may be rolled out to other venues.
Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to co-sponsor the CPA event at no more than $2,500. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Co-sponsorship of CPA Business & Psychology Conference up to $2,500.00 approved.
Policy Statement. There was considerable discussion regarding whether or not SIOP should issue policy statements by the EC over email prior to the meeting. Most members came to the conclusion that we do not want to issue policy statements, but do want to write evidence-based position papers and make them available.
Dr. Cortina has written a target article regarding LGBT issues for the new SIOP journal. The question was raised, if we write position papers, what will be done with them? Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested that white papers do get read and cited. The affirmative action paper was widely referenced. The sentiment was that we should try producing papers and figure out how to disseminate. We may not know now, but we can learn. Dr. Knapp noted we should ask the Federation for assistance.
Dr. Latham suggested that we can we hand this to Dr. Pritchard and ask him to handle it. He is leading the SIOP white paper project with EAWOP and IAAP-Division 1. Together the three societies are issuing a series of white papers that will have global impact. They want topics that have global importance. The papers will be widely distributed. The initial one is the impact of an aging workforce on the globe. They will come up with others. This is an ongoing effort of the 3 associations. All of the papers are research based with policy implications. There is a representative from each association. Dr. Pritchard is our representative.
Dr. Pearlman noted that we want to make sure that it is not just a sidebar, but integrated with our branding and visibility efforts.
Mr. Nershi suggested that the papers be available free for download, but that hard copies be provided at cost. This is something in which the new publications board can be involved.
Dr. Dipboye noted that we need to determine copyright issues so that such papers do not preclude publication.
President Latham brought up the issue of a presidential travel budget. He noted that he has an advantage because he is an endowed professor and has a travel fund that can be used at anytime for travel related to scholarly endeavors. Currently, SIOP presidents do not have a travel budget. This puts some presidents at an economic disadvantage in that they need to attend events on behalf of SIOP, but must pay to attend these events out of their own pocket.
The specifics discussed were 1) should there be a travel budget, and 2) if yes, how much, and what is the clearance process.
The sentiment was that the SIOP president should definitely attend APA, the Leading Edge Consortium, and one international trip to work with our international partners (e.g., IAAP). Expenses include transportation, registration, and accommodations. There should be accountability and transparency in the process.
It was discussed that members of the EC who form the emergency action subcommittee (EAS) can serve as the committee that approves presidential travel. The EAS is currently comprised of the incoming, current, and past presidents, the Secretary, and the Financial Officer. Under the new governance structure, the EAS is comprised of the three presidents and the three most senior board members (which may or may not include the Financial Officer/Secretary). It was decided that for the purpose of presidential travel, the approval body should consist of the EAS and the Financial Officer/Secretary if s/he is not already on the subcommittee. The vote should be unanimous by quorum.
Motion made by Dr. Bauer to approve a presidential budget of up to $10,000. Motion seconded by Dr. Truxillo. Motion passed with all in favor and one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: Presidential travel budget of up to $10,000 approved.
Motion made by Dr. Pearlman to add a line to the 09-10 budget of $10,000 for presidential travel with withdrawal from the account to be approved by a group that consists of the emergency action subcommittee plus the Financial Officer/Secretary. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed with all in favor and one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: Presidential travel budget approved as line item in 2009-2010 budget. Withdrawal from the account to be approved by a group that consists of the emergency action subcommittee plus the Financial Officer/Secretary.
The President will submit a budget during the regular committee chair budget process. Other travel needs will be approved on an ad hoc basis.
FUTURE WORK WITH MARKETING GENERAL
President Latham asked Mr. Nershi to provide a report and his thoughts on the activities of Marketing General (MG).
Mr. Nershi indicated that he thought MG had provided good work thus far. His opinion was that we needed their assistance to bring our brand to life. They made a very valuable suggestion with regard to the tagline. They can help us with the name change. Now that we have information regarding what the brand should be, the next step is to make it happen. People want us to promote SIOP as indispensable to business.
Mr. Nershi asked the AO team if MG was needed to help with PR or if the staff was able to go forward on their own. The team thought there was value in continuing to work with MG on PR. However, Mr. Nershi’s suggestion is that we probably do not need them in the PR area. The other area was development of a sponsorship program overhaul. The idea is to develop strategic partnerships as opposed to one-offs. Mr. Nershi’s bottom line opinion was that it would be good if we could maintain them in some capacity with a lower financial commitment. We have spent $70,000 thus far. Between now and June 30 we have $14,000 in the budget for them.
President Latham asked, “What will they do for the $14,000?” Mr. Nershi thought they would take their ideas regarding the brand and begin to execute them. President Latham asked what that would look like. Mr. Nershi thought it would consist of a series of print ads that include graphics and the tagline. All of our products should have a similar look and a similar feel. They can help us develop marketing materials.
President Latham asked what are they able to do that you and your staff cannot do? Mr. Nershi replied that the AO does not have the same depth of marketing experience. It is helpful to have this outside group to bounce ideas off of. They are an instigator of positive things with their network of contacts. They have expertise that we lack.
Dr. Knapp asked if Mr. Nershi thought that some of their expertise could become institutionalized enough that at some point we could break off the relationships. Mr. Nershi thought that we could do that with the PR at this point, but with the branding they offer something unique.
Dr. Knapp noted that she thought there was value in what they have done and that their survey was much better done than the one we did internally. As we move forward, we need to recognize that who we count as a practitioner makes a difference.
The issue of exactly what the additional 14K would buy us was again discussed. Mr. Nershi noted that a major concern was that our branding work would stop if we did not continue with MG. Dr. Pearlman asked if we could get enough out of MG with the 14k to reap the benefits of the prior work. Mr. Nershi was not confident that the 14k would complete everything that we need, but was confident that we could get good value with the 14K. With 14k we can ensure that the project continues to move forward.
Dr. Tetrick stated that we need to make sure we physically have the data. This needs to be addressed by our institutional research committee.
Dr. Knapp thought that the 14k will go further now that they know our organization. We don’t want to walk away if there is additional value in making sure that we do not stagnate. It prompts us to make sure this does not fall off the table.
Members of the EC expressed the sentiment that they were not impressed by the presentation. Concerns primarily rested on the notion that MG did not provide a clear action plan. The presentation was not well structured and it was feared that it could be a reflection of their competence. It could turn into a money pit. It was thought that MG missed the point in many places (e.g., suggesting that one researcher and one practitioner should be on everything).
On the other hand, it was expressed that perhaps we did not give them guidance on what we needed in the presentation. President Latham noted that MG was specifically asked to provide examples of what they had done with different organizations similar to SIOP regarding branding. This was not done in the presentation.
President Latham noted that based on his conversation with another association that has worked with MG, the opinion is that they are very good at getting new members, but they are not creative.
All were in agreement that branding was important, but the question was degree of comfort with continuing with MG. We need to know how to get there. Dr. Dipboye noted that he thought our brand should be something that captures the commonality across our science and practice members.
Mr. Nershi reviewed some of the specific recommendations (p. 53 of presentation has outline).
Dr. Salas stated that before we spend an additional 14K we need to know what the next steps are.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell asked if there was a sense that MG or some other firm will give us the expertise to continue on. Dr. Pearlman asked if there would be any other options in terms of how we can continue. For example, could we hire an independent consultant to continue the work? What are the other ways to get where we need to go? Mr. Nershi noted that marketing and PR companies have a lot of different models. A new company may want to go back to “square one.” But it is possible.
The following course of action was decided:
1. MG will be asked to provide a 3-5 report of specific, actionable recommendations within one week. The EC will review the report and then determine the next course of action.
2. President Latham, practice based EC members, and the Professional Practice committee will go through the data collected by MG and the practice survey and develop a list of prioritized recommendations.
Meeting adjourned by President Latham at 12:09.