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

Sunset Review - LRP

Jose Cortina

In preparing this report, I solicited responses to the nine sunset questions from various past and present members of LRP.  I have summarized those responses below.  Clearly, the committee should continue to exist.  The biggest problem for the committee seems to be that Mission Creep has led to more and more routine tasks at the expense of actual long range planning.  I would suggest that LRP be asked as the beginning of each SY (SIOP Year) to identify one long range issue.  Often, that issue will be the same one that represented the focus of the previous year.  The primary charge of the committee would then be to make concrete progress on that issue. 

1. What are the routine tasks and obligations of the committee?

  • carry out sunset reviews of standing and ad hoc commitees according to a schedule outlined in the SIOP bylaws and the Administrative Manual
  • coordinate budgets, facilitate communications & serve as resource etc for clusters of committees
  • co-host (with E & T) a town meeting of I/O program directors at the annual conference
  • respond to requests of President as needed (serve as a standing task force of sorts).  This usually involves tasks that fall outside the existing committee structure
  • make long range plans for SIOP

2. How well have these been handled? 

Quite well, except perhaps for the last one.  

3. What are the regular and recurring expenses of the committee? 


4. What special projects have been assigned or assumed? 

Meet with APA Science Directorate representatives this was intended to improve SIOP/APA relations and help the Society get more from our membership in APA (Lois). 

Meet with the Foundation for the Advancement of Behavioral and Brain Sciences in order to inform membership decision (Lois and Jose) 

Evaluate an opportunity to partner with  Microsoft to develop content for an Office-linked website.   While committee chairs from Scientific Affairs,  External Affairs, and Communications participated in discussions, as an LRP member Kurt  had the lead in working with  Microsoft and serving as liaison to the EC. 

Identify ways to improve the status of I-O Psychology in academic settings 

Prepare/flesh out proposals for Foundation projects 

Prepare Society responses to APA proposals (e.g., recent comments on proposed revisions to accreditation scope and guidelines) 

Research attitudes toward possible SIOP name change and identify possible names for consideration on a name change ballot 

Prepare documentation for recognition as a specialty via CRSPP application (? I think this was an LRP task, but not sure) 

5. What are the noteworthy successes or failures? 

A few years ago, when the SIOP Foundation felt that it was financially ready to begin identifying worthwhile projects to fund, LRP members had the task of preparing proposals that fleshed out ideas for Foundation funding requests.  (The ideas were generated at a strategic planning brainstorming session, as I recall.)  This really kick-started the process of seeking funds for worthwhile projects/activities.  Several of those ideas became projects/activities that have since been funded by the foundation.  For some of them, information in the proposals made it apparent that pursuing some of the ideas would probably NOT be a good idea at this point. 

Preparing the CRSPP application was a huge undertaking with important implications for SIOP because it essentially delineated the unique features of the field of I-O with respect to content and methodology of our science and practice, and training of I-O psychologists. 

6. Should the committee continue to exist? 


7. What is needed to make the committee more effective? 

Many of the activities of this committee are carried out by a subset of the committee consisting of the Members at Large, and this is fine for the routine tasks.  However, it isnt readily apparent when LRP tasks should be handled by the full committee. Some clarification of the roles of committee members (e.g. Members at Large vs other LRP members) might help. 

More importantly, the better part of the implied mission of LRP (or at least of the Members at large) lies in routine tasks that dont fall easily into the existing committee structure.  The upshot of this is that it spends less time on actual LRP than perhaps it should.  

8. How is the committee relevant to addressing one or more of the strategic issues facing the Society? 

The town meeting is one mechanism.  Recent efforts to develop strategies for addressing the migration problem is another. 

9. Are committee materials (e.g., Administrative Manual) complete and up-to-date?