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

Minutes of the Spring Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

 
  
APRIL 29-30, 2007
Marriot Marquis Hotel
New York, New York 
 
 
 
Present:
 
Dr. Tammy Allen, Dr. Steve Ashworth, Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell, Dr. Talya Bauer, Dr. Wendy Becker, Dr. Mindy Bergman, Dr. Judith Blanton, Dr. Gilad Chen, Allan Church, Adrienne Colella, Dr. Jose Cortina, Dr. Robert Dipboye, Dr. Anna Erickson, Dr. Lisa Finkelstein, Dr. Michelle Gelfand, Dr. Mikki Hebl, Dr. Eric Heggestad, Dr. Scott Highhouse, Dr. Verlin Hinsz, Dr. Leaetta Hough, Dr. Ann Howard, Dr. Eden King, Dr. Deirdre Knapp, Dr. Kurt Kraiger, Dr. Ron Landis, Dr. Gary Latham, Dr. Larissa Linton, Dr. Jeff McHenry, Mr. Dave Nershi, Dr. Julie Olson-Buchanan, Dr. Ken Pearlman, Dr. Bob Pritchard, Dr. Doug Pugh, Dr. Mickey Quinones, Dr. Doug Reynolds, Dr. Chris Robert, Dr. Steven Rogelberg, Dr. Deborah Rupp, Dr. Paul Sackett, Dr. Eduardo Salas, Dr. Peter Scontrino, Dr. Rob Silzer, Dr. Lois Tetrick, Dr. Donald Truxillo, Dr. Suzanne Tsacoumis, Dr. Janine Wacklawski, Dr. Mike Zickar.
 
Absent: 
 
Dr. George Hollenbeck, Dr. Bob Sinclair, Dr. John Scott, Dr. Steve Kozlowski
 
President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 1:05 pm
 
President Tetrick welcomed us all and led us in a round of introductions.
 
Dr. McHenry thanked everyone who served as committee chair or on the EC. He said one of the things most reassuring to him is all of the people here who volunteer to drive creative change, and keep the engines of SIOP running.
 
President Tetrick mentioned she’d be keeping her comments short, She asked us as we continue through the meeting to keep our strategic initiatives and goals in mind. She also expressed some concern that we have been very energetic about getting initiatives started, it is possible we have a proliferation, and she cautioned us to make sure we are integrated in what we are doing and to always keep each other informed. She asked for any questions, and then moved on to the officer reports.
 
 
President’s Report
 
Dr. Tetrick laughed that she just gave it – she is already ahead of the game.
 
 
Financial Officer’s Report
 
Dr. Pearlman noted it is his ongoing challenge to keep these short. He referred the group to the preliminary budget for the fiscal year. This is our best estimate for now, before the conference numbers are in. We are to approve the preliminary budget today and at the September meeting we will finalize it. There are no things in particular to call special attention to at this time; all is in good shape. We are where we expected to be. It is looking like another banner year in terms of conference and workshop attendance, and we will exceed the surplus that we had previously forecast. Does anyone have any questions following this quick perusal?
 
Dr. Colella asked what the conference numbers looked like so far. Mr. Nershi replied that the numbers seem to be exceeding the budget for both income and expenses. There was higher attendance, but higher food and budget expenses. Appears so far that we are higher on the income side, so we will be in good shape.
 
Dr. McHenry presumed that the couple of major initiatives that have been discussed have not been included yet in the preliminary budget. Can we propose additional money later? Dr. Pearlman replied that was correct.
 
Dr. Pearlman asked for a motion to approve the preliminary budget. Dr. Cortina made the motion and Dr. Barnes-Farrell seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
 
ACTION ITEM: The preliminary budget is accepted.
 
Secretary’s Report
 
Dr. Finkelstein asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the February EC meeting. Dr. Colella made the motion and Dr. Bauer seconded. Motion passes unanimously.
 
ACTION ITEM: The minutes of the February meeting are approved.
 
Next, Dr. Sackett took a moment to get the group up to speed on the current state of the new journal. After reviewing the process of securing Blackwell as our publisher, the time has come to sign the contract. He was very impressed with their package and their enthusiasm for what SIOP is doing. Ms. Karlei Mitchell from Blackwell joined the meeting, and Dr. Pearlman and Dr. Tetrick signed to much applause. (Note: The name for the journal was later finalized as Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.)
 
Dr. Tetrick thanked Drs. Sackett, Pearlman, Hough and Mr. Nershi for their efforts to make this a reality. Dr. Hough also thanked everyone else who was involved in the process.
 
Foundation Report
 
Dr. Howard gave a brief foundation report. She told the group that the Dunnette prize is on a roll with $85,000 in contributions. She welcomes all of our contributions as well. She said the foundation is currently trying to raise $25,000 for at least one new emerging issue. They are working to get topics defined and will come back to the group to make sure it is approved. The final item is a fundraising campaign planned for the fall. It was going to be called “the big ask” (much laughter) but might change that for obvious reasons. Dr. Howard requested that an email could be sent out to all members (except students). It would be customized for those at the conference vs. not and sent out in 2-3 weeks. She asked for any discussion.
 
Some discussion was raised as to whether this campaign should follow so close after successful collection of donations at the conference, and whether this email campaign would be instead of or in addition to the typical one in the Fall. Dr. Howard clarified that this campaign is focused specifically on the scholarship fund – great minds of the future – and thus a pointed campaign, and yes it would replace the other one.
 
A motion was requested to approve the email. Dr. Bauer made the motion and Dr. McHenry seconded. The motion passes unanimously.
 
ACTION ITEM: Approval of scholarship fundraising email to all members except students from Foundation to go out in 2-3 weeks.
Consent Agenda
 
The consent agenda consists of items that we only need discuss if anyone particularly wants to discuss them, otherwise we make a motion to approve it. The items on the consent agenda included the report on emergency action items, the approval of the Ambassador program e-mail to go to department chairs, and the cluster coordinator reports. The only emergency action item since the last meeting was the approval of the Dunnette award. No discussion – Dr. McHenry makes the motion to approve, and Dr. Finkelstein seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
 
ACTION ITEM: Approval of the consent agenda.
 
Dr. Tetrick instructed the group to get into groups of incoming and outgoing chairs, grouped by cluster heads. The goal is to share initiatives for the coming year and discuss any ideas that were spontaneously generated during the conference. Take about 45 minutes. Dr. Kraiger asked if this was the training and orientation session for new chairs, which historically has happened at this time. Dr. Tetrick said people should share information about the key events that take place during the year and how to find out more information in the administrative manual. That could be relatively short so that the groups can focus more on projects. 
 
Dr. Tetrick called the meeting back to order at 2:40.
 
Dr. Tetrick mentioned that she heard a lot of lively discussion in the clusters and a lot of neat ideas being passed around. She requested that if anyone has any questions or ideas that SIOP should consider they should email her, and she’d like to be kept informed with what’s going on. Next, we moved to a discussion around the strategic focus areas.
 
Science and Practice
 
First, Dr. Sackett reported that the starting point for guaranteed payment to publishers was $20 per member and $10 per student (to be paid by SIOP, and come as part of the membership fees). Several publishers said no. We thought the money would come back to us in terms of guaranteed payments and royalties. We got down to three finalists, and he pushed them to make their offers as attractive as possible to SIOP in terms of price. In the end, the contract we signed with Blackwell is for $12 per member and $6 per student (much applause). This is if we stick with the 7-year contract. If we extend to 10 years, it goes to $10 and $5 from $12 and $6. 
 
Although this is a great deal, it amounts to an upfront expenditure for SIOP that adds up to $57,000. We write a check to Blackwell, and in year one we will get back less than that, as we will not yet have royalties from downloads, etc. We have a guaranteed minimum, and over the length of the contract we will do well, but there is an upfront expenditure..
 
Dr. Pearlman interjected that he can’t emphasize enough what Dr. Sackett accomplished. He got an incredible deal, and did a lot of work to determine numbers under different scenarios. We will be able to break even with a dues increase of 10 dollars. The likelihood under realistic assumptions is that we will make money on this. We should be in the black within two years, and should do well in the life of the contract. This is a great deal for the membership and tremendous for the Society.
 
Dr. McHenry then said that he and Dr. Pearlman worked on this, went through a number of scenarios and all the other new things we are doing for members. It’s been several years since we’ve had a dues increase. We have a number of additional services, new staff in the AO, a new website, are launching the electronic newsletter. As we started to look into risk management on the journal, the scenario that they were most comfortable with would call for a dues increase of $5 per year for the next three years. They would like to take it a year at a time. So, they would like to make a motion that we increase by $5– not with this next dues period as it is too late, but a year from now, with the projection that we will also due this in the 2 years following. If we need to change that a year from now we will. The last time we did a dues increase it was one time from $32 to $50 a year (Secretary note: we later correct this to say 55 dollars). Looking at the analyses, we have cash reserves for this year to keep us covered. We need to communicate this to the membership in accordance with the bylaws. Dr. McHenry makes the motion and Dr. Bauer seconds. Some discussion ensues.
 
Dr. Avery asked if the increase was for students as well. Dr. McHenry replied that he believed it was less for students, and just for one time. (Secretary note: this was later corrected that it was indeed 5 dollars for everyone, but for students this would be a one-time increase).
 
Dr. Cortina asked if we are trying to get a certain amount of money in the coffers, why do we have to do it over time – why couldn’t we do a $20 hike one time and nothing for students?
 
Dr. McHenry replied that there were a couple of reasons for this. One is the bylaws. Members who approved a bylaws change to permit the EC to raise dues no more than 15% without a vote have in essence asked us to do regular small increases in dues rather than coming at them with a big increase. The second is that he is personally more comfortable saying we need the five dollars, and then need to wait to see what happens. We may not want to go forward with another increase, or we may want to scale it back. This is a moderately conservative position. In terms of students, their dues are quite low right now and they are getting a lot of value, so a small increase seems reasonable.
 
Dr. Kraiger commented that what he took away from last time is that we are at a point where we are in a really strong financial position, but at the same time we are also at a point of higher volatility. Part of the reason for needing to think about dues is to what we need to give ourselves flexibility. Every time we project growth we are surprised it grows more. This is part of the cautiousness of protecting ourselves but also being able to scale back.
 
Dr. Pearlman noted that this is not just about how well the journal does but how well the Society is doing in general. If we are doing really well, we may want to reconsider altogether if we can keep dues as low as we can for as long as we can. We need to look at all the finances.
 
Dr. Scontrino asked about the time lag. If we vote now, will we need to have the lag? Dr. McHenry clarified that anything we do at a meeting, 12 months from then would be in cycle.
 
Dr. Dipboye noted that a lot of initiatives that we are going to talk about during the session including the three day conference schedule might have unforeseen costs. Last time we said we would have a minimum reserve based on the operating budget. Where are we with that and would that change what is in the reserves? Dr. Pearlman said that we have what we need in the reserves, and there shouldn’t be any implications of that on the journal. We also have the technology reserve and strategic funds reserve, and we are where we need to be on all three.
 
Dr. Bergman asked if the $5 includes being proactive for new initiatives we may not have thought of yet. Clearly we are growing; will this keep us where we are or move us forward to where we are going to be?
 
Dr. McHenry replied that the way Dr. Pearlman set up the budgets, we have some money for initiatives. We haven’t approved any significant expenses. We have funds to tap into for that. Some initiatives could tap into recurring costs. This is more about ongoing operations. He noted that Dr. Kraiger phrased this better - that we are taking on a couple of things that we just don’t know the impact. The money gives us protection against the volatility. We are trying to be moderately conservative. Fifteen dollars will cover us just fine over that time. New things that are operational are going to go on into perpetuity. We know these things will be part of continuing operations.
 
Dr. Rogelberg said the $5 doesn’t concern him, even though he is in a psychology department. The concern is more about the perceptions of raising dues. Do we have enough reserves to suspend judgment for a year and see where we are at? The reserves might even go up after this conference. Dr. McHenry replied that the challenge we have is the lag – we have to get 90 days notice. If we wait a year, then the earliest we could collect the money is May or June of 2009. This is a little more risk than we wanted to take on at this point. This was a compromise so that we have enough of a cushion, but we can still take stock. This is what the best and brightest have come up with so far. Dr. Scontrino commented that SIOP is the best professional dues deal out there – he thinks we could do even more. This would require a vote of members.
 
President Tetrick commented that if we don’t need $10 right now, it is best to take the conservative approach and then see where we are. Dr. Heggestad asked what the dues currently are, to the reply of $55 . Everyone nodded that this was a bargain. Dr. Bauer wondered if people even notice – she is noticing just because we have to talk about this now.
 
The vote was then called for. It passed unanimously.
 
ACTION ITEM: Dues will be raised 5 dollars for the following fiscal year across the board for all members and student members.
 
President Tetrick took the conversation in the direction of science-practice integration. Dr. McHenry said that one of the suggestions that came out of the meeting in September is that we could better articulate the scientist practitioner model. In September a group that Dr. Silzer facilitated came up with a great suggestion that we do this, and should have done it years ago. In February we agreed to proceed with this. We want to approach this in a way that we could contract with an organization to do the work on this. He talked with a number of individuals who have done talks in this area. Dr. Wally Borman has done a lot in this area, and works in both practice and academics. He talked to Dr. Borman and he was extremely excited and enthusiastic about the idea. He was eager to hear who wants to be involved and would be delighted to be part of this. This would not be an in depth job analysis done by this committee, but rather they would work on how we would approach it and maybe write an RFP to see if someone else could do the analytic work. If anyone is personally interested or knows someone who would be, talk to Dr. Silzer.
 
President Tetrick then introduced Dr. Vikki Vandeveer, who came to talk about the draft of the APA model licensing act.
 
Dr. Vandeveer thanked the committee. She said she and Dr. Blanton are both on this committee with 8 other people. The purpose of her coming here is to brief us on this act. She wants to stimulate a long-needed discussion and action. We need to do something one way or the other or we are going to get pushed in or out of it.
 
She provided some statistics to the group. For example, SIOP members are 59% practitioners and 51% academics. About 50% of those are in business schools. Some psychologists are migrating to organizational practice, driven out by psychiatrists, and many people prefer masters level people for therapy, so the PhD’s and PsyD’s are finding fertile turf in organizations, and many are very good.
 
Applied psychologists are often migrating to one-on-one practice, like coaching. She herself is one of them. At SIOP, there is a room full to overflowing whenever coaching is discussed. 
 
Also, there are a lot of new doctoral programs forming, some MBA-PhD programs, and consulting psychology programs.
 
State legislation will determine what activities would be regulated. The APA practice directorate is expanding its umbrella to be inclusive of all psychological practice. They are starting to expand their lobbying efforts beyond healthcare. We have a few people plugged into what’s happening there, and I-O’s have a lot of influence whenever we choose to be involved.
 
She then reviewed several important points. 
 
First, exemptions are being removed from licensure. This will impact a handful of states. 85% of the jurisdictions already are generic laws, and about 10 specifically say I-O’s are included. This would only affect 15%. Illinois is one of them. Many states are generic so that if you are practicing in some way you need to be licensed to use the term psychologist. Some think if you use tests and administer tests to thousands, if you make decisions about people, you are affecting people, and you need to be licensed. Need to be sure there is a minimum level of competence. Many of our folks ignore this, and boards don’t go after them and don’t know who they are. In the new model act, all agreed that they can’t justify exempting people who make decisions about people’s lives.
 
Second, as for interstate practice, you can work 60 days per year in another state if licensed in one state.
 
Third, mobility and portability will be easier with the new model.
 
Fourth, there is a provision that the boards will be responsible for mechanisms for maintaining and expanding competence (CE credit opportunities). If people start doing something different, they will need to see what they did for retraining. 
 
Since we have no official standards, people assume you don’t need anything special. A lot of people are well qualified, but they don’t know what they don’t know.
 
The first requirement for licensure is education. All psychologists must have a core of accumulated knowledge. Only doctorates will be licensable. There will be regional accreditation of schools and approved graduate programs. We need to somehow revisit this. If we don’t have accreditation, we need to have specific curriculum requirements. For example, we need to have a course offered in biological bases of behavior. These are the courses mentioned:
 
a. scientific and professional ethics and standards
b. research design and methods
c. psychometric theory
d. bio bases of behavior
e. cog-affective bases of behavior
f. social bases of behavior
g. individual differences.
 
This may be a big problem for programs with just a couple of I-O faculty.
 
The next requirement is experience. They will have to have 2 years full time supervision by a licensed psychologist whose practice is appropriate to the area. We can’t just go to this overnight, it can’t happen.
 
There could be a grandparenting clause – if people have been practicing because they are exempt, they won’t have to take the exam if they can submit letters from licensed psychologists. Some states are being flexible, and making it more flexible to get the supervision. Trying to find ways to be creative to make this happen.
 
So, Dr. Vandeveer explains, this is where we are right now. The train has left the station. We do have some options, but we need to talk about this. I-O’s not in compliance with their state laws, at a minimum will be left out and at a maximum could be prosecuted.
 
What should we do about this? In New Orleans we had more than 30 people who would do pro bono work to help, and APA said “no” unless they were licensed. Out of 34, only 4 were licensed and we really had to scramble. They found a way for those who were licensed to supervise the others and ensure they were complying with their area of competence.
 
There will also be a component of this act for education of the public, which will include what psychologists can do and how to identify qualified psychologists.
 
The questions for us are: are we on the train? Are we psychologists?
 
If no, our practitioners will not be able to call themselves of imply that they are psychologists. As soon as someone says they have a doctorate in psychology, they will be exposed. Health service providers will set practice for organizational practice. Some students who wish to be I-O psychologists can get graduate training through consulting psychology doctoral programs and/or PsyD and MBA programs. We can go that way, but then what happens? We are Division 14 of APA now. We really need to figure this out soon.
 
If yes, we are psychologists, we need to be specific and communicate the competencies and proficiencies needed for I-O practice. We need to ensure the core is covered in graduate training curricula. We will need to set and communicate standards and ensure the quality of education, either through accreditation of programs or an alternative way for each program to demonstrate that it meets requirements. We will need formal internships, which will take some time and work.
 
Dr. Vandeveer’s recommendations are to have an open and thoughtful dialogue among SIOP practitioners and academics and in the EC. We need tons of communication, and we need action. We need active collaboration across areas of psychology, research and practice. We also need to engage with the APA practice directorate.
 
She stopped there, saying that we aren’t going to figure this out today. Dr. Silzer asked what the time frame looks like on this. Dr. Vandeveer said it will take a while. She would estimate that by next spring we need to be willing to write letters as individuals and as a division and respond to this. Within the year we need to get this going. It will be a year or two before it goes into effect. It will take a while, but we need to start talking about the direction we want to go.
 
Dr. Scontrino said that as former chair of the state affairs committee, it will be difficult to get 50 states to accept this. States don’t want to open their licensing laws. This could be passed by APA, but he wouldn’t be surprised if only 20 states do it in 30 years.
 
In response, Dr. Vandeveer commented that she is serving on a committee with a bunch of clinicians. Young students are getting out of clinical programs with lots of debt and not making a lot of money. What if they sued these I-O’s who aren’t licensed – it would open up opportunities for them. We’ve had this discussion go on for years. People over the years go on and on about how the state can’t make them do this, but they can.
 
President Tetrick said she was on the EPPP exam committee. When doing a practice analysis of applicability of the exam they selected a sample from licensed I-O psychologists. Dr. Blanton was interviewed, only in the “other” or NA” categories were not set up to respond (check this!)
 
We used to score highest on EPPP, but no longer. People usually affiliated with medical schools doing the best.
 
Dr. Kraiger pointed out that one of the elephants in the room is our perceived relationship with APA. A potential benefit of our relationship with APA is that APA can help communicate to the public what I-O psychology is. However, there is a concern among members that if that message comes from APA, it will not be an accurate description of what I-O Psychology is. Therefore this type of communication is not the benefit it seems to be. Part of the frustration is that when we try to provide input something comes out and then it doesn’t acknowledge what we did. Here is a question for Dr. Vandeveer. The hypothesis is that because as a society we haven’t done a lot that is called for here, we don’t have a set of standards for practice, we don’t have the information or a tool that allows other people to take us seriously. If we say here’s what we’ve done and ways that we are contributing it would be harder to ignore us. All we have to do is engage. Dr. Vandeveer said every time she is in Washington Dr. Russ Newman comes over and wants to know what is happening with us. They do want to know. We use this “us” and “them” language all the time. We are them if we are psychologists. They want to engage – we do have a voice that we don’t exercise enough. Dr. Kraiger asked if we have a stronger voice if we have a competency model? Dr. Vandeveer said absolutely. If you are going to do selection in an organization you need to know the skills that we have. We need to know the law. There are people advising on selection that don’t know the law.
 
Dr. Dipboye asked if this is going to come up at the next APA meeting? We have a lot of things to decide by next spring. Two things that stand out are proficiencies and approval of I-O programs. These two issues alone could take a lot of debate. Can you enlighten us about what is meant by an approved program? Dr. Vandeveer said that was her term as she was avoiding the word “accredited.” That gives us more flexibility. We may just want to demonstrate to a board that they have the classes that are needed. She is not suggesting that SIOP certify programs, but that we have to decide. 
 
President Tetrick closed the discussion but reiterated we need to start a dialogue. She suggested people keep talking about this tonight at dinner. We need a lot of people involved, and eventually will put together a task force.
 
The conversation then turned to Dr. Chen, who introduced the idea of advocacy workshops. As part of the effort in September, the advocacy group came up with a couple of issues that we feel like we could advocate on behalf of SIOP, and decided that we can leverage our relationships with the federation. The two topics they came up with are “leadership in a complex environment” and “the age diverse workforce.” We want to give something for the federation in terms of knowing how to take it forward and advocate it. This will be helpful in terms of advertising what we do as well as down the road enabling us to have greater chances of getting grants and a voice in public policy. Dr. Dan Ilgen and Barb from the Federation got very excited about this. The catch is that for us to be able to have their help we need to pay some additional funds (on the last page of the handout is a budget for an event they would sponsor). Dr. Chen proposes that we get funds for what they call a ‘combo event” – a couple of concentrated days in DC. We will give them a list of speakers and they organize everything – they will contact everyone, bring in agency people, staffers on capitol hill. The event would have a big panel session with SIOP members, and on the second day some members would go to Capitol Hill to talk to staffers and tell them how we can impact public policy. Last year Dr. Michelle Gelfand was involved in talking about cultural research for fighting terrorism. Right now we are members of the Federation at the lowest rate. If we aren’t going to try one of these things, we won’t know how much the Federation can help us in our advocacy efforts. This is where he wanted to open up the discussion.
 
At this point much discussion ensued about the choice of topics, including which of those two proposed were favored (and in a straw poll the age diverse workforce was favored by a lot), and even if we could have a mechanism to think about other potential topics before moving forward. There was feeling among some that the topic choice was less important at this time because of the trial nature of this first event, that it was more important to move forward to see what the Federation could do, and an opposing feeling among others that we won’t be able to judge the trial if the topic wasn’t a hot enough topic.
 
There was also a great deal of concern among some members that we are putting all of this effort into a fairly expensive event with the Federation and not putting the effort into seeing what APA could do for us, possibly for cheaper. After much discussion consensus seemed to be that we need to be utilizing both the Federation and APA in our advocacy efforts.
 
President Tetrick asked if Dr. Chen wanted to make a motion. Before doing that, he said that there is interest from NIH to hear from us. Barb met with them after Dr. Ilgen gave her some stuff to talk about, and they are really interested in hearing more.
 
Dr. Chen then asked for the motion for funding for an advocacy event sponsored by the Federation not to exceed $20,000.
 
Dr. Knapp asked if we could take out the specificity of the Federation. President Tetrick thinks that would be a substantial change, and asks for a friendly amendment. Dr. Cortina seconds. Dr. Dipboye clarifies that we are committing the money without specifying the topic. A vote is taken, with 10 votes in favor and 2 abstentions.
 
ACTION ITEM: Funding will be provided for an advocacy event not to exceed $20,000.
 
President Tetrick recessed the day’s session at 4:58 PM.
 
 
 
President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 8:04 AM.
 
The first issue was a continued discussion about Dr. Vandeveer’s presentation yesterday. President Tetrick wants to appoint a task force to come back in September with a plan. Drs. Heggestad, Silzer, Vandeveer, and Blanton will be involved, and maybe also some past presidents who have a long term view of the issue. President Tetrick also reminded us to give her any suggestions relative to topics for the advocacy event.
 
Next, Dr. Anna Erickson gave a presentation about the Psychologically Healthy Workplace business initiative, which includes a Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award. She is giving us an update so we can think about what SIOP can do to exert some influence on this. This is sponsored by APA. Now there is an I-O psychologist on board, Dr. Yvonne Morales.
 
There are a couple of reasons for us to be involved. APA is very serious about giving psychology a good name beyond mental health. They are putting a lot of money towards this. You can see the videos on the website and the press releases. 
 
Dr. Erickson’s main point was we need to encourage this at the grass roots; this is where we can have some influence. We need to try to get people on state committees. The states give an award and then it goes to the national APA level.  
 
Dr. Scontrino reported that he is on the committee in Washington state. They let people join free for a year to encourage joining. One of his clients won the award last year. The application itself was easy to complete, and we should encourage our clients to apply. It is great recognition.
 
President Tetrick thought it would be a terrific idea to put together a TIP article suggesting we could and should have a proactive role in state activity. Much discussion followed about how it would be a great idea to have SIOP folks joining and getting involved in the board of state associations.
 
The group thanked Dr. Erickson for her presentation.
 
Next, Dr. McHenry refreshed the group about how, at the last meeting, he presented a letter he received from 12 individuals expressing concern that SIOP is accepting advertisement from test vendors who are not making validity results widely available. A request was made that the executive committee vote to not take money from these vendors. Dr. McHenry reported that he had some dialogue with one of the individuals, with the outcome another letter with a similar theme to step up our work in this area. We discussed this last time, and we decided it was appropriate that we do more publicly about what the standards are around making results available. He is planning to get Dr. Kozlowski involved and get some articles in TIP to reinforce ethical testing standards. Just before SIOP he sent a letter back to those individuals saying we don’t have an intent of policing this ourselves, but APA could be a vehicle to press those issues. We are not well equipped to police. Our approach is largely education, reinforcing good behavior, and using the APA ethics committee as a vehicle for any charges.
 
 
Dr. Becker asked for specifics on who Dr. McHenry was volunteering for the TIP article, and he responded that Scientific Affairs was his thought. He asked if Dr. Silzer wanted to be involved, and the could work that out together. Perhaps some things could go directly to test vendors. At a minimum should have a couple of visible articles in TIP. President Tetrick pointed out that this is an excellent article for science and practice to work on together.
 
Next, we moved on to the Master's Consortium results. Dr. Heggestad reported that by all indications it was a success. They had over 100 applicants, had room for only 65, representatives from 37 programs. On a qualitative level, he reported that 2 students who last year felt disenfranchised at SIOP felt really involved and loved it. They developed a process whereby Dr. Sachau, the coordinator, will stay on for two years, they will get a chair in training for next year, and possibly accommodate to get more people.
 
Next we had an update on the Fall Consortium. Dr. Hough explained that the theme will be “enabling innovation in organizations.” Dr. Michael Frese and Dr. Bill Mobley are the science and practice chairs. It is truly a leading edge topic. It is important for the future of I-O psychology. We need more practitioners doing innovation work. Great speakers are lined up, including Dr. Ed Lawler, the keynote, and Dr. Jim Farr. There will be speakers talking about individual creativity, team creativity, the dark side to innovation, and leadership factors. It is an exciting set of topics. Some of the other speakers include Drs. Mike Mumford, Miriam Erez, Neal Anderson, Jeremiah Lee (from Ideation corporation), Jacob Goldenberg, and David Campbell. The former CEO of IDEO is being contacted for a presentation. She hopes to see everyone there in October in Kansas City. There are still some coupons available for $95 off. The dates are October 26 and 27, at the InterContinental Kansas City at the Plaza.
 
Next came the conference report by Dr. Pugh. The conference was very well attended. The final count was 4,509 registered, 1,000 more than in Dallas, and 23% more than the previous all-time high in Chicago. Dr. Pugh said he wanted to point out that everything he did was a fraction of what Mr. Nershi did. It brought in more revenue although was more expensive, but it will be a financially successful conference. The conference committee will be meeting on June 9 in San Francisco and talking a lot about the 3-day transition. Hundreds of people have already reserved their rooms there, at the Hilton.
 
Dr. Cornwell then gave the outlook on site selection for future conference hotels. He said the future looks bright. He just assumed this role following Dr. Truxillo and Dr. Ashworth. After this conference on the east coast, we are going west next year to San Francisco, then to New Orleans in 09, Atlanta in 2010, Chicago in 2011, and San Diego in 2012. The San Diego hotel is fabulous. Dr. Truxillo agrees it is over the top – in the good meaning of that term! It was a great deal with a great room rate. It is right on the water – we will be enjoying the sun. Dr. Cornwell’s task is to put together an RFP for 2014 and 2015. Many of the national marketing offices like to offer a package deal which could be beneficial to us. The RFP package can be for either 14 or 15 or both years. One goal is to get back to the East Coast. One option right now for 2013 is the Houston Hilton Americas. This is unlike any Hilton, built by the city of Houston near the convention center. We don’t need to use the convention center but it would be right there across the street. The hotel is a beautiful boutique hotel. It is a little small for us in terms of number of rooms, but there are a lot of hotels right there, and cabs are $5 to anywhere in the downtown zone. The hotels in the area range from very upscale to Holiday Inn Express. There are lots of entertainment venues, easy transportation, and a brand new park being built that the hotel will be managing, and we could possibly use for outdoor receptions. He is asking the EC to approve that he go ahead with negotiations. Now that we are large enough and have a stable history with a good track record we can go further out than we used to. Dr. Highhouse commented that the Psychonomics Society just had their meeting there and it was very good.
 
Dr. Silzer commented on how well the conference did in New York and hopes we can come back.
 
Dr. McHenry made a motion to approve Dr. Cornwell’s request to negotiate Houston, and Dr. Pearlman seconded. The vote passed unanimously.
 
 
ACTION ITEM: Approval to go ahead with contract negotiations in Houston for the 2013 conference.
 
Next we turned to an update on other initiatives.
 
First, following up on the remaining Science and Practice initiatives from September’s meeting, Dr. Rogelberg was asked if work can be done toward the idea of a master collaboration session, focusing on key work done in collaboration between academics and practitioners, to encourage highly visible collaboration. It was mentioned it might be possible to incorporate into Thursday’s theme track, and possibly with the psychologically healthy workplace.
 
Another idea was an award for a team integrating science and practice. This could potentially fit with awards or membership. Dr. McHenry said that Dr. Thayer spoke with him about opportunities with the foundation. They are trying to make it easier to create an award around a topic or issue. They do now have a vehicle that could allow us to create an award around science and practice integration, and they are willing to think about that. They may have $25-$30, 000 for an award. Anyone interested on working on this idea should let him know.
 
Dr. Heggestad talked about the education guidelines for science and practice integration. They held a session about this, which was well attended by graduate students but not faculty. They formed a sub committee to survey graduate programs to see how they are training practitioners. Dr. Marcus Dickson is on this committee and will write up the results for TIP. If there is anything else people would like to see here, Dr. Heggestad said to let him know. 
 
Dr. McHenry said that it seems like we have a couple of trains down different tracks here that need to come to the station at the same time. There is the model licensure act work, the science-practitioner model definition work, and all this needs to coordinate somehow, so people don’t feel like the stuff they are working on is going to be undermined with what other people are doing. We need an umbrella but not make it so big so that nothing gets done.
 
Dr. Salas updated the group on the book series he has been working on proposing. They are thinking of launching a new book series like an annual review. He is waiting to hear back from publishers by the end of May so by the next meeting he should have a proposal to move forward. APA is very interested and he expects to hear more from them soon. Dr. Sackett asked Dr. Salas to explain how this will be similar or different from the journal initiative. He clarified that these will be review chapters, with science and practice editors. It should be good reference material. It will be very different from the journal - completely different in purpose and format.
 
President Tetrick suggested we move on to the visibility initiatives. We started with an update on the media event by Visibility chair Dr. Reynolds.   In September we looked at visibility as a focus area and one idea was to have an event to get media reps in a room to talk about what we do. This was held in March in New York. Dr. Silzer was there, and there were about 10-12 journalists and about 12 I-O psychologists. All of the journalists seem to come in with ideas about what they were writing about – they already had their own agendas. We need to use these opportunities also to plant seeds, to drive our hot topics forward. Overall it went very well. The initial idea was proposed as an annual event, but we should link it to the conference more.
 
Dr. Colella asked if we got any media exposure for the conference out of that. It was clarified that they were not specifically pushing for a headline about the conference, but they may want to think about that. Dr. Silzer encourages us to still have media events in New York, as they got representation from big publications like the Wall Street Journal and Business Week.
 
Another initiative was to investigate hiring a marketing or PR firm. Originally it was more of an RFP but that turned more into a RFI as we are learning what sorts of things these firms could do for us. Some of the suggested things they could do for us on a regular basis include things like media tours, newsblasts, and identifying spokespeople within SIOP that they can promote. They can help with brand development by evaluating the brand and making changes to it. 
 
Dr. Reynolds said in the next couple of months the committee should have planned steps and budget requests. This would probably go to a vote of the emergency action committee between now and the next EC meeting. Although some of the things the firms propose could be up around $100,000, we most likely would start with something smaller such as an audit and brand research, possibly in the $30,000 range.
 
Moving on to the new web content and newsletter. Dr. McHenry reported that he and Mr. Nershi have been working on this. The electronic newsletter will be either monthly or quarterly, not yet sure. It will be a vehicle for just-in-time announcements for society things to attend to (e.g., deadlines for submissions, reminding people about conference information, etc.). Have been wrestling with the idea of how many emails we should send. So, the idea is that we can bundle all these things together into a monthly newsletter. It will be really brief and include links to more information. This will be for things that TIP is not well suited toward, with the editorial delay. They are in the final stages of working on this. A vendor created a shell, and the initial one will launch within a month or two. As said earlier, still making the decision of monthly or quarterly. It will have the look and feel of the SIOP website so we will have consistency in branding. This will be a module on our content management system, so Dr. Ashworth, who is working on this, will have clearance to get in and add things. It is pretty much ready to go. Also, we could make this available to non-members who may want to keep abreast of what’s going on. Dr. Sackett mentioned that this dovetails nicely with the journal, and it will be a great vehicle for letting people know a focal article is available for review and commentary. His preference is monthly rather than quarterly. Mr. Nershi said that Dr. Sackett can also go through the system to publish things on the website related to the journal.
 
We have still been wrestling with the website content and who’s job it will be to keep up with general workplace issues and scientific psychology. We don’t have an editorial process for getting content in there. Mr. Nershi is exploring the possibility of getting someone from a professional service who can search for things if we give them parameters. They won’t create the content, but they can find it. It is a lot of work to get up there what’s up there now.
 
Mr. Nershi explained that Information Link is a company who collects content for newsletters, including ASTD. They scan 8000 publications daily. You give them topic areas and out-of-bounds areas, and they will abstract articles and send a selection on either a monthly or bimonthly basis, and we can use what we want. The service for twice per month would cost us $2,000 per month. The website is becoming like a large St. Bernard that you have to feed large amounts of food (content) to daily. Having this service will help. Dr. Silzer said the HR division of the Academy does a nice job with this. We don’t want mush. Dr. Highhouse asked if Mr. Cliff Boutelle is feeding into this, and Mr. Nershi replied yes, we still want him to do what he does, and we would like to have our members generating content we can highlight.
 
Some suggestions for generating content that were put forth include borrowing content from TIP, using information from our conference and our books, and doing membership poling on various topics.
 
After a 10 minute break, we returned to the discussion on membership and governance first, with a plan to return to advocacy.
 
First, we discussed the proposal for the Institutional Research Committee. Back in the September meeting the membership group had a number of things they wanted data on and didn’t have, so decided to propose the formation of this committee to coordinate various surveys and monitor the use of the data. Dr. Quinones commented that if someone donates the time the information doesn’t come back to the AO office and we can’t track core items year over year. We need a data bank. We want to drill down and get a better understanding of the demographics. Dr. Quinones reviewed the handout outlining the responsibilities of the committee, and suggested they would need a chair and a chair in training, and probably a 2-year term.
 
Dr. Bauer commented that the strategic component is who has access to this kind of data. Drs. Truxillo and Quinones came up with the basic structure but the first chair would come up with basic policies. Dr. John Hollenbeck is willing to take this on, and he’ll pick the committee and take it forward. Dr. Pugh asked if this would take over the conference survey stuff. Dr. Quinones said no, but data should be handed over after to have it integrated. Dr. Pearlman asked if there has been a conference survey, and Dr. Pugh responded not for a while, but they had planned to do it after the first three year conference. They did do a lengthy survey already to find out people’s opinion on moving to the three day, so they didn’t want to do another big survey now. It doesn’t seem like there has been a particular rhyme or reason to it. Dr. Pearlman commented that it seems odd to him – this is what we do – why don’t we get feedback on each conference? There are some conference related items on the member survey, but maybe we should look more specifically at how people reacted to lots of different things, to help inform future planning. Some ideas were put forth about when we should survey, and whether we should survey after this conference to have a baseline for which to compare once the three-day conferences start. Dr. Pugh said he would give some thought to this to see if feasible. Other suggestions on this topic were to start counting how many people attend the various sessions, and because attendance is fluid, we would need a count perhaps at the beginning and end of sessions.
 
Dr. Avery mentioned he has been having a problem trying to figure out the demographic profile for CEMA. He wants to get people’s input on how they can be more proactive to encourage people to fill out the demographic information. Concerns were raised about making sure we structure questions carefully and consider not collecting information that might be sensitive attached to identifying information.
 
Moving on to the membership issue of inclusion, and issue that Drs. Bauer, Heggestad, Bergman, and Truxillo have been working on. It was reported that the new member social was a great time again, and reminded the group that people love to see the rock stars there, so please make it a point to always attend. Dr. Bauer passed around a handout describing a plan for changing the process for soliciting volunteers for committees. A lot of people want to get involved in SIOP and don’t understand how. Sometimes they send in applications and they seem to disappear. One problem is there is no mechanism in place for feedback to people who volunteer but don’t get put on a committee. Also, it would be helpful to have KSAO information on individuals who are volunteering in order to utilize their talents best. We want to move this to an electronic format and gather this information from everyone. It is almost time to reconstitute committees, so we’d like to have this in place.
 
At the last meeting Dr. Bauer was charged with forming a task force, and Dr. Bergman is going to head that up. However, Dr. Truxillo noted that he’s not sure that an actual task force is needed, as this plan is pretty far along. It may be time to just start generating and using the form. 
 
Dr. Finkelstein gave an update on the master calendar project. She has completed the task of gathering information on the important dates for activities and particularly busy times of various SIOP committees, including the EC, the awards committee, the fellowship committee, and the conference and program committees. She will be working with Mr. Nershi to figure out how best to present this information so it is accessible to everyone on the website. This should be a big help for allowing everyone to see what the committees are doing when and get a sense of SIOP’s rhythm of business. 
 
Next we turned to Dr. Kraiger’s report on the activities of the governance task force. He said that he had two requests for everyone, and asked that there be no diffusion of responsibility and that people follow up over the next couple of days. He will send a three-page document that talks about the committee’s activities in more detail. Part of the next step is to collect more data and do some interviews. He is asking for some names of people they should interview who have a broad view of what the EC does, such as past presidents.
 
To review the timeline, the decision to put together a task force to investigate SIOP’s governance came from the September strategic planning meeting. Dr. Kraiger was appointed to lead the task force and names were generated for potential members. The task force includes Drs. Dick Jeanneret, Irv Goldstein, Rich Klimoski, Jeff Weekley, Janet Barnes-Farrell, Jim Farr, Milt Hakel, Laura Koppes, Mickey Quinones, and John Cornwell. During the process of recruiting members for the task force, one of the neat things to emerge is the enthusiasm of the group for their assignment. While this is not a group comprised of individuals likely to use an emoticon in an email message (with the exception of Mickey of course), everyone expressed great appreciation for being asked and great enthusiasm for the initiative. During the December-February period they discussed what the issues were and thought about what additional information they might need. They met at the conference on Friday. Based on Dr. Kraiger’s desire to move this forward quickly, he took the big problem facing the task force and broke it down into smaller problems for the group to follow-up on. However, there was push-back from the group. Everyone wanted to spend more time examining what’s broken. Dr. Kraiger realized he had been looking at symptoms, and they wanted to know what might be underlying it. The best outcome of the meeting was a renewed enthusiasm that this is important, and now they are focused, though he wishes this happened two months ago.
 
At the symptom level there are three issues. One is a representation issue for the EC. If we think about SIOP as a set of constituencies, we have multiple constituencies – associates, international members, students, practitioners, academics, etc. Do we want a way in which different groups are represented? What would be the process? There are transparency issues as well in terms of how the EC does its business and how it’s perceived by different constituencies. The second and major focus is the organization itself. Long Range Planning went through the process of sunsetting itself, and realized at that time that LRP no longer does long range planning. They are no longer looking and doing environmental scanning; now this is being done in different ways through the strategic plan. We need to think more about the consequences of this and who should have this. The next level is the committee level. Do we have the right ones? We could keep clarifying boundaries. We have some functions for which we don’t have committees, like the journal. We need to recommend what committees should still be and how they should be organized – will it still be the clusters? We need to be thinking of length of service. Some committees already do chair in training – need to think more about that too. The third broad issue is strategic. A discussion at the retreat that has been captured and maintained is the nimbleness of the EC. Can we act relatively quickly if we need to act fast on something? Other societies have faced this and reorganized in terms of becoming more nimble. 
 
Dr. Kraiger said the original plan was to come to the September EC meeting with recommendations, but he doesn’t think they’ll quite have those yet. However, they should have a lot of information to share at that point, and then can culminate with recommendations in January. In response to a question, Dr. Kraiger said that the task force is assuming a blank slate right now, for example, the final recommendations could be anything from no members at large to twice as many. 
 
He anticipates that the recommendations will mean that some bylaws will probably have to change, and we will need to have a bylaws vote at next year’s conference. Whatever happens wouldn’t go into effect until the conference starts in 2009. There will be a substantial set of recommendations, and he wants everyone to have the opportunity to reflect and get feedback. The task force has asked to meet at least once and probably twice. He will be coming to ask for some money to facilitate that.
 
Next, the conversation turned to advocacy issues. Dr. Hough explained that she had been on the FABBS board, helping with the Intro to Psychology companion book and Science Cafes that she has spoke of earlier, and then interestingly she was asked to run for President Elect of the Federation. She felt this could be important for SIOP and a good opportunity for SIOP to have greater impact with her in that position. She is the first practitioner to be elected. Last month, the executive director Barb went to a retreat in Arizona and met with high level staff people in federal agencies like NSF and NIH. The crux of their conversation was what will behavioral science look like in 10 years. We are going to need two representatives to the council to go to the Federation meeting, and President Tetrick said she is working on that.
 
Dr. McHenry talked about the advocacy team. It has been hard to get momentum here because of independent efforts targeting different agencies and we don’t yet have an integrated strategy. We need to narrow down, assign work to people, and measure success. Visibility is more integrated, but we don’t really have that with advocacy. This is one of the things we are working on and need to consider since it is one of our four strategic pillars. He laughed that this is now someone else’s problem, pointing to President Tetrick, and said of course he’ll support her but we need some kind of temporary team or person to pull together a strategy. This is something he and President Tetrick have just started to talk about. For some elements if something comes up, we don’t have any structure in place, either to be reactive to opportunities or proactive. 
 
President Tetrick agreed and also said that in lots of ways the advocacy and visibility efforts are blurred. We can’t advocate if people don’t know who we are. They are inherently related to each other. We have so many irons in the fire, and always seem to be waiting on things. She would like us to move forward with advocacy, and we can do it on an ad hoc basis as we wait for the recommendations from the governance folks. We need to try to come up with a team of SIOP members in the DC area to be responsive to immediate requests, visit different granting agencies. Just from things we’ve learned here, we see they are not always thinking of us. We need to remind the Science and Practice Directorates at APA that we are the workplace experts. She will take the responsibility to pull that together with a group of people in the DC area, and will draw on all of us in this room to think about the strategy related to advocacy. Dr. Kraiger requested that he gets the information on how we are approaching this so he can work that into what he is doing.
 
Dr. Knapp mentioned that we used to have the APA/APS relations committee, and asked if this was the kind of thing that they were envisioning this committee doing. President Tetrick said yes, that would be part of the tasking, but also we have all these ideas for advocacy projects without being really sure what we are advocating for. Her view of it is that one of the main tasks for advocacy rather than visibility is to get the funding agencies to recognize that I-O psychology can contribute to the mission. We haven’t really come up with a focus of how we are going to do that, we need to draw on the expertise of people who have linked with some of these organizations. We need to make sure we have a dialogue with SHRM but need to keep our distinction as well, and that can be a difficult one.
 
Dr. McHenry worries a little that visibility and advocacy are such broad terms. There are two spheres of influence that he sees – one is funding agencies, science communities, others like us, and then there is the world of business and the general public. The first could be the focus of advocacy and the second, visibility. However, could think of it another way – visibility to policy makers and advocacy to business. So, maybe these aren’t the right terms? He thinks our job will be easier if we think of it in terms of spheres. We should be able to give Dr. Reynolds’s (visibility) team and the new advocacy team different spheres. Dr. Hough said we also need to think about lobbying. We can’t be lobbyists as an organization and neither can APA. We also need to think about advocacy to psychology departments. We all need to think more about this. Dr McHenry thinks if we carve up the world into where we want to have influence it might help.
 
President Tetrick said she would like to get input from folks that have been around this, and then we can talk about this in September when she has more data. She doesn’t want to derail anything that is underway. We get people excited about projects and we don’t want to stop them. With regard to specific advocacy at the federal level, that is with Dr. Chen and Dr. Kozlowski, and she will follow up with them.
 
Dr. Knapp said that at the APA level, they had talked about doing an APA rep. handbook to guide our activities and help facilitate the transition when we have new reps. There is a huge learning curve and people are only on there for three years. She also wants to request that committee chairs be more proactive to propose ideas to the APA council reps so they can try out their advocacy skills. President Tetrick said this is an excellent opportunity for us to exercise the influence we have in the council and for collaboration with other divisions, which will help both visibility and advocacy in the long run. Please contact the reps if you can think of something for APA to sponsor.
 
Dr. Knapp said that another way to get visibility is to take a look at the APA (and APS) committees that are parallel to the ones they have and try to share with them or leverage that connection. We are very well organized compared to many other APA divisions, so we can impress them as well as get more involved and visible.
 
Moving to state level advocacy, we need to think more about state associations and get active that way. Dr. Cortina suggested that we have a list of members and the states we reside so we can identify one person from each state to have them be the person who makes sure there is an I-O representative on committees at the state level. President Tetrick said there may be people there but we just don’t know it. Dr. Blanton said even beyond that there are a few states where I-O people are on the board of psychology and are really helping to make regulations, and that’s been terrific. Dr. Cortina said that even just among current EC members and committee chairs we should have half of the states represented. Each of us can find out what they can about their state associations. 
 
President Tetrick tasked the state affairs committee for organizing this. We should find out how many people are in state associations, as well as how many members have funding from agencies. She would like to send an email to the membership to find this out. Dr. Blanton asked if long term that can be added to the member survey, and Dr. Hough added maybe also to the membership application, or when we update our membership information. Mr. Nershi cautioned that people don’t always do this. 
 
President Tetrick said she gets nervous wanting more than one thing in an email. Dr. Sackett suggested it go in the first newsletter. President Tetrick said we should try to aim to do this at the end of May. Dr. Knapp pointed out that it’s one thing to ask a question as to whether someone belongs to a state association, but we need to also think about how we can benefit from that and let people know that. President Tetrick thinks we can do that in the newsletter. She can also put something in the Presidential column.
 
APA is going to be having a science leadership conference focusing on advocacy – there will be training and then going to the hill to try out skills. Dr. Blanton asked how we can help to research what people are doing now so that they’d have something to go up there with, and President Tetrick said she will be working on the integrated advocacy strategy. During this training they will provide what people will be advocating for.
 
We switched gears to discuss the business of planning the September meeting. It was determined that the place we have been going the last couple of years in Chicago works out well. The dates of September 14 to 16 work best.
 
President Tetrick said that one of our two sister organizations, SIOPSA, approached her with a request that she thought was reasonable. They are trying to enhance the scientific view of organizations and increase participation of blacks in their organization and would like to sponsor a scholarship for $3,000-$3,500 to bring one of their I-O graduate students to our conference. Dr. McHenry said that the foundation may be able to help. President Tetrick said she could put together a specific request. Dr. Cortina asked if they were going to want to know who gets it and how it will be decided. President Tetrick thinks that SIOPSA should decide. Perhaps they could pick a best poster that meets the criteria and invite that person. She doesn’t feel comfortable deviating from the normal review process, and President Tetrick said that her SIOPSA contact said that the student would be terrified to present, but just wanted them to attend.
 
President Tetrick adjourned the meeting at 11:13 AM.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Dr. Lisa M. Finkelstein
Secretary