Sunset Review - LRP
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
out sunset reviews of standing and ad hoc commitees according to a schedule
outlined in the SIOP bylaws and the Administrative Manual
budgets, facilitate communications & serve as resource etc for clusters
(with E & T) a town meeting of I/O program directors at the annual
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
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
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
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
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?