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

Minutes of the Fall 2007 Executive Committee Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

September 14-16
Present: Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell, Dr. Talya Bauer, Dr. Wendy Boswell, Dr. Jose Cortina, Dr. Robert Dipboye, Dr. Lisa Finkelstein, Dr. Deirdre Knapp, Dr. Kurt Kraiger, Dr. Gary Latham, Dr. Jeff McHenry, Mr. Dave Nershi, Dr. Ken Pearlman, Dr. Eduardo Salas, Dr. Lois Tetrick, Dr. Donald Truxillo
Absent: Dr. Adrienne Colella

President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 5:07 PM
President Tetrick announced she would keep her opening comments short, as there was a lot on the agenda. She welcomed the group and moved on to the President’s Report.
President’s Report
There is a lot going on in relation to the strategic initiatives.  Some very similar things are going on simultaneously in different parts of the governance structure.  We need to make sure we are coordinating as much as possible.  If anyone has stuff going on within their cluster, they should make sure they are coordinating with similar things in another cluster.  We don’t want to stymie any activity that’s ongoing.  We’ve also been waiting on certain things until we hear from the governance task force.
President Tetrick asked for any questions in regard to logistics for the meeting, and as there were none, we moved on to the Financial Officer Report.

Financial Officer Report
Dr. Pearlman told the group this could be as painless as we wanted it to be, it was up to us.  There are three to four things to cover.  First, a quick review. Next, information on the recent audit. We need to talk about a small financial policy change.  And, finally, we need to approve the final version of next year’s budget.
The cover sheet gives the highlights.  The fiscal year ended on June 30.  We have a profit loss and balance sheet, with budget and actuals.  Following this are the pie charts that will go up on the website for the SIOP members to see where our income and expenses come from. 
We have had a very good year.  Our net income was $368.900.  Almost half of this was due to unrealized gains on investments.  So, it’s really good but we have to temper that with the fact that some of it is paper gains.  We had an increase in the value of our assets.  No one particular thing in the conference accounts for the reduction in the amount of profit this year. The expenses were high as we know in New York. 
Dr. Latham asked whether, as incoming president, there were one or two metrics to help particularly in keeping the eye on the ball.  Dr. Bauer mentioned that programming was a big one.  Dr. Pearlman said he keeps constantly learning about it from Mr. Nershi and Ms. Lentz.  Basically a good way to approach it is to look for the largest numbers, and then look for changes from year to year.  Did anything really shift? Is income growing? Are revenues keeping up with expenses?  We see that our income looks really good but expenses are going up also. We’re really growing, that’s what that is all about.  We’ve had phenomenal growth in the last couple of years.  Dr. Latham asked where that is coming from.  Dr. Pearlman said a lot of it is conference income and sponsorships.  Workshop attendance is continuing to increase, as does the use of job net.  Mr. Nershi added that if you look at the pie chart, 54% of income comes from the conference.  It is really great that it’s so successful – but were it not, that would be a problem.
Dr. Latham asked if we should be worried when we go to the west coast.  Mr. Nershi replied that there is some concern with the change of format, but so far the submissions look great.  Dr. McHenry replied that it helps to know that.
Dr. Cortina asked roughly what kind of hit we took in unrealized gains.  Dr. Pearlman noted that earlier he was being facetious, because the Dow dropped 1000 points right after this was calculated. But, we don’t really look at this week to week.  It is a little lower, but no big deal.  We aren’t really used to looking at this at all, which is a positive reflection or our growth.  We have more money invested, we will be seeing larger gains.
Moving on to the next thing he mentioned, everything has been audited (audit reports were circulated to look at).  An outside auditor examined the books, and everything is fine, not even any suggestions.  Everyone is happy. We get an A, if not an A plus.
Next Dr. Pearlman referred us to an item in the briefing book supplement. On page 8, we see we have got more money than we’ve had, and it looks like a good time, because of the bond market, to get some longer term bonds. The interest rates are pretty good; T bills were issued by the government last year.  We might want to move larger chunks of money into long term safe investments.  They talked it over with our investment advisor at National City. We are capped at 5% in our investment portfolio right now. So, it’s looking like a really good deal, but because of that policy we can’t take advantage of that. So, he proposes we change the policy to make it more flexible to allow us to be more conservative!  The idea behind the suggested change is to allow for investing in bonds that have a maturity of ten to twelve years.  The change will read that “corporate bond holdings” in a single company shall not exceed five percent of the income portfolio, and then there are no restrictions on the percentage of this portfolio’s holding in government grade or government agency grade investment vehicles.  All this is brought on because we want the ability to do more with bonds. It has all been discussed with the advisor and everyone is in agreement. We want to lock in cash gains.  You start thinking about wanting to protect our money to a greater degree, and longer term bonds can be a great way to do that. The difference between these and shorter term bonds can be up to half a percent, which won’t be trivial for us.
President Tetrick asked if there were any other questions.  Dr. Latham pointed out that it sounds like a must-do; are there any downsides?  Dr. Pearlman thought not, and anything we’d actually do we’d run by him, when President, to get his view on it.
Dr. Pearlman made the motion to accept the revision requested in the investment policy.  Dr. Knapp seconded the motion.  Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accept the revision requested in investment policy.
Dr. Pearlman said he would be comfortable being more conservative. President Tetrick suggested we also get benchmarks with other associations.
Next, Dr. Pearlman led us to a review of the proposed budget.  We approved the preliminary version at the last meeting. Now we have the conference numbers.  Probably the key thing of interest here is the conference budget. There are a bunch of detailed sheets that Dr. Pugh and Mr. Nershi worked through, but the important thing here is that we wanted a return on expense of around 65%. The way this is playing out, San Francisco is a big unknown.  We are working at a projected registration number of 3600.  New York was off the charts. This is our first year for the 3 day, and it’s the west coast. So, this is really an average.  We’ve got big city expenses like New York, so in order to get anything close to what we want, the fees were increased.  There are three categories:  member, student, and non-member.  Each of those is increased at the early registration level and regular registration.  There is a $10 fee increase across the board, except $5 for students.  This still gets us only about a 58% return on expense, which is less than desirable.  But, that’s where this budget sits, and we want to see if there is discussion or concern?  The rates in an absolute sense have not gone up a lot, and we probably won’t have to raise fees again for a few years.  We are being conservative and cautious, but given it’s a big city this figure should probably hold for a while.  If you think of what conference fees typically are, this is a hugely good deal, for all the action packed stuff we’ve got at our conference!
President Tetrick had one question.  She doesn’t see a lot of budget items for committee projects. Does that mean they aren’t in the budget? There are several things on the agenda that request money. Do we need to work with what’s here?  Dr. Pearlman said that those things have all been worked into the budget.  Mr. Nershi pointed out that the committee chairs already made their requests for budgets.  Dr. Truxillo wasn’t sure that the requests for surveys for practice are on here, and Dr. Bauer wasn’t sure the volunteer request was on there either.  Dr. Pearlman said that he knew the visibility request was there. There is a lot of lost detail in this printout under the line 7023 in the budget, so we can’t see how it breaks down.  He knows the journal stuff is on there.
Dr. Cortina stated that we’ve been discussing San Francisco as a big question mark. Do we know the relationships between submissions and attendance in New York?  Might it be different in San Francisco?  Dr. McHenry said they don’t know the exact correlations, but good submissions traditionally have been a good sign.

Dr. Truxillo asked if the submissions jumped as much in New York as attendance did, and we didn’t think that was the case.  Dr. Cortina suggested LA would be a good comparison, and Dr. Finkelstein pointed out that was the year she was program chair and the submissions did go up slightly from Chicago, but attendance dropped. Many people said that it’s hard to compare LA to San Francisco, as San Francisco as a city is more of a draw.
Dr. Knapp pointed out that the electronic newsletter will be starting before then. We can really use that to promote the city and the new format.
Mr. Nershi commented that Dr. Pugh’s number is conservative to realistic.  Dr. Truxillo suggested the issue might not be whether or not people attend, but how long they stay.  Mr. Nershi mentioned that they didn’t want any room block problems like in Toronto. The room block was locked up two years ago, and we are a little vulnerable if people don’t stay.  We use the best thinking we can at the time with the best information that we have. 
Dr. McHenry said one thing that worries him is if you look at the program net income running a deficit, we count on investment income to make up the difference.  Maybe we can say this year we are doing that intentionally, but that’s probably not a good pattern to get into.  We are running a program deficit of about $150,000 in the budget. We are counting on other income to cover the difference.  We shouldn’t get in a pattern of doing that – it’s like the idea of trying to make sure you can live on what you take home in your paycheck.  Mr. Nershi pointed out that this is another reason why the registration increase is a good idea.  Dr. Pearlman pointed out that we usually exceed what we budget for income and it has been higher than projected each year.  We did have additional expenses this year, including a new staff member, the initial journal expense, the PR firm.  We don’t know if the program income will cover it. Mr. Nershi pointed out that some of that is nonrecurring expense.
Dr. McHenry suggested that if we do end up running at a program deficit this time, we take a hard look at how to avoid that in the future.  Mr. Nershi added that everyone estimates the little part of their budget in a conservative way, so when you add up all of those conservative estimates, we are probably better than we look.
Mr. Nershi added one more thing.  The office is going to move somewhere else in Bowling Green.  It was approved as an Emergency Action item recently.  In essence, the landlord was going to increase the rent a lot over several years, and they found a much better deal at a place that is much more amenable to the way the office works.  There is a detailed report on how they found the new place in the briefing book.  He wanted to mention this in the context of the budget, because there had been money in there for the increase in rent. That will now be applied to moving expenses and the unused equipment funds will be moved forward. They have $10,000 to $15,000 in expenses that will go toward furniture, a DSL line, etc.  Dr. Pearlman inquired whether they would finally get voice mail, and Mr. Nershi joked that they couldn’t embrace too much technology at once.
Dr. Cortina put forth the motion to accept the proposed budget.  Dr. Bauer seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously. 
ACTION ITEM: Approval of the budget.
Secretary’s Report
Dr. Finkelstein pointed out that as usual her (very long) minutes from the Spring EC meeting were in the briefing book, and she is confident that everyone read them carefully and with great interest. Dr. Latham insisted he read every word on the plane.  Dr. Finkelstein asked if anyone had any comments, questions, or suggested changes if anyone was misrepresented, and no one had anything. 
She made a motion to accept the minutes of the Spring EC meeting.  Dr. Bauer seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approval of the Minutes of the Spring Executive Committee Meeting.
Consent Agenda
There was only one emergency action item, which was already discussed – the relocation of the Administrative Office was approved.  Mr. Nershi quipped that the proposed move to the Cayman Islands was vetoed.
This was the only thing on the consent agenda.  Dr. McHenry moved to approve the consent agenda, and Dr. Pearlman seconded. This passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM; Consent agenda is approved.
At this time we moved on to a discussion of the award winners, presented by Dr. Boswell.  Note that as this is confidential information, only the general votes, without names or discussion, are reported below.
Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award:
The candidates and reports from the committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. Latham made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. McHenry seconded.  Motion passed with eleven votes in favor, one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award was accepted.
Distinguished Professional Contribution Award:
The candidates and reports from the committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. Latham made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. McHenry seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Distinguished Professional Contribution Award was accepted.
Distinguished Service Award:
There were no nominations this year for this award.  Everyone was disappointed by this. Dr. McHenry made the suggestion that perhaps they interview 5 or 10 past presidents to ask them who the people were who really made a difference while they were president, and these are some people to nominate. Everyone agreed that was a great idea.
Dr. Cortina asked how cumbersome the nomination process was. It is essentially the same as the others, which isn’t too hard.
Dr. Bauer asked that maybe in the future if no one is nominated by a certain time that the committee be notified in order to generate some ideas for nominations.  We need to make sure it is far enough out from the due date that it has time to go through all the proper channels.
Distinguished Early Career Award:
The candidates and reports from this committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. Cortina made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. Dipboye seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Distinguished Early Career Award was accepted.
There was some general discussion about this award, centering around how difficult it is for a practitioner to win this award. It is hard to quantify the contributions of practitioners in a way that competes with academics for this award.  President Tetrick suggests that the award committee consult with people from the practice community to get a sense of what a scientist practitioner would look like at that early stage, and see if the committee can draft a change in the description for the award. It would be great to have that for the winter meeting, but if too soon the spring would be fine.  The makeup of the committee was also discussed, in terms of it being comprised only of past award winners, all of whom have been academic.
Distinguished Teaching Award:
The candidates and reports from this committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. Cortina made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. Finkelstein seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Distinguished Teaching Award was accepted.
Myers Award:
The candidates and reports from this committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. McHenry made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed with eleven votes in favor and one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Myers Award was accepted.
Owens Award:
The candidates and reports from this committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. Cortina seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Owens Award was accepted.
Wallace Award:
The candidates and reports from this committee were reviewed, and the committee’s recommended winner was presented.
Dr. McHenry made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation, and Dr. Pearlman seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Award committee’s recommendation for the winner of the Wallace Award was accepted.
President Tetrick and the committee thanked Dr. Boswell and her committee for a fantastic job.
Dr. Boswell brought up an issue in regard to rollovers. The current process listed in the rules is that there is an automatic rollover for Professional, Scientific, and Service contributions.  For the Meyers award and the Teaching award, it is up to the committee.  For the Early Career it hasn’t been an automatic rollover. Usually people don’t go up until the last year they are eligible, but that’s not always the case.
One issue is that it might work its way into the thought process of the committee when they know it is a rollover.  One option is to make it less automatic, or institute an opt in or opt out type of process.
Anyone can get nominated for a long time for some awards; there is no constraint on when they need to be done. The general concern with automatic rollover occurs if an individual keeps running and is never really in the running. It is awkward and not doing them justice.
Dr. Latham mentioned that with the Fellows committee they found it’s really important to give feedback. If the decision was negative, it’s important to let them know if they should re-nominate or what it would take to get it.  It is hard to do, but the nominees always appreciate the candor.
It was noted that no one rolled over on Service.  It is anticipated there will be rollovers with the Scientific Contribution award. 
President Tetrick recommended that Dr. Boswell go back and talk with the committee, and seek some input from Dr. Bauer and Dr. Bono. There are pros and cons with different ways of approaching it.  Dr. Knapp noted that it is good to give people choice, and realistic feedback.
Dr. Boswell brought up another issue in regard to the anonymity of committee member’s votes.  When there is a split they need to talk about things. If it is not anonymous there may be a lot of persuasion going on.
President Tetrick suggested maybe providing general information without the actual numbers, but Dr. Boswell pointed out they really wanted to see the numbers.  May be possible not to provide numbers vote by vote, but give the means.  Dr. Latham suggested it is important that there aren’t wallflowers on the committees; they should see themselves at an equal level.
Dr. Bauer asked if voting, discussing, and voting should be the official procedure, because it is currently not clear.  There is also a rating vs. ranking distinction.
Dr. Cortina suggests everyone gives their numbers to the chair, the chair complies them, then everyone gets those and there is discussion about the recommendations. The discussion part has to be there.
Dr. Bauer asked what happens if one person wins by rank and one wins by rating.  She thought the final vote should be ranking, and that is what Dr. Bono and Dr. Boswell have done.
Dr. Latham stressed that the committee members really need to think that the process is fair. Dr. Boswell said that the feedback she received was that everyone was really happy with the process. Letting them know up front how it will be done is really great.
It was also mentioned that practitioners often feel disconnected from the awards. Many people want to be considered but people aren’t likely to nominate themselves and often only they know the extent of their contributions.  Dr. Truxillo pointed out that perhaps the practice survey that is in the works will help with figuring out how to judge practitioner contributions.
This concluded the Awards portion of the meeting, and everyone gave Dr. Boswell a hearty thanks.
Science and Practice
Dr. Truxillo presented a proposal put together by Dr. Silzer for two practice-based surveys.  He pointed out that right now we don’t really know what the areas of practice of our members are, and how they’ve changed.  Right now about 60% of our membership is comprised of practitioners.  We need to know their needs. So, there are really two surveys proposed here. One is what they are doing, and the other is what they need.  We hear there is a lot of dissatisfaction but we don’t know the numbers.  We also know that labels are used loosely – the labels people give themselves don’t describe what people are actually doing.  For example, there are people in academic locations doing practice; sometimes the label just describes the setting.
President Tetrick agrees that we may be in need for some fresh input as to what practitioners need from the society, and that this needs analysis would be helpful and sounds reasonable.  The estimate put forth was for one thousand dollars; she isn’t sure how they are going to be able to do that.
They are going to try to identify people doing practice, and make sure to distinguish full and part time practice.  A challenge will be to sort out what people call themselves and what they are doing. People can be very emotional and passionate about their identity, but we also need to know what it means.  President Tetrick said we should also know the difference between those with masters and PhD.
President Tetrick said the needs survey is a no brainer.  She agrees that the practitioner career study is a great idea and we need to know more about this.  But, she thinks this might actually be a larger effort than what is proposed here, and related to what Dr. McHenry had asked Dr. Borman to look into.  Perhaps we could collapse these two efforts. Dr. McHenry clarified that he and Dr. Silzer did jointly call Dr. Borman.  Also, Dr. Silzer envisions the needs survey happening first and then we can move on to this.  Dr. Truxillo said he thinks things will move quickly and thinks they would want to be able to present some results at the conference.  He asked for some conference time (from the EC block) to present the results. It is better to plan for that now vs. later even if it ends up not being entirely ready. He also wants to do focus groups at the conference, but this will be time off the grid.  A suggestion was also made that rather than (or in addition to) doing focus groups at the meeting, they could be done at the regional I/O groups. This would give a good sampling, and most of them are practice oriented.
At this point the decision was made to vote on the first (needs) survey.
Dr. Truxillo made a motion that we approve that they move forward with the needs assessment survey.  Dr. Bauer seconds.  Is there discussion?
Dr. Latham brought up a few caveats.  Although he is heavily biased in favor of practice, the academic-practice gap was as large in the 70’s as it is today. What is SIOP going to start, stop, or do differently at the outcome of these two projects? We will learn something surely, but what are we going to do with this?
Dr. Truxillo said that rather than focus on doing something, it’s more like clarifying what is.  It’s like doing a job analysis. 
There was discussion about which survey we are talking about, or both?  Mr. Nershi suggested that the needs analysis survey could tell us what could be rolled into programming and the fall consortium.  Dr. Latham said that was a great answer.  Also, information could be fed into the conference program committee.
Another suggestion was that it could help inform the criteria for electing practitioners to fellow.  Dr. Latham said he loves these answers and wants to see if Dr. Silzer agrees and can better articulate what these projects can do.
Dr. Knapp suggested that this be membership wide, instead of trying to identify the practitioners.  It is the practice of I/O that is the focus, and we should include people who do it on the side. We should be clear on what is different between this and a job analysis.  For example, she just finished a survey that was part occupational analysis and part needs analysis.  The needs analysis helps in program development (e.g., conference programming, educational curricula). The occupational analysis is used for credentialing and those sorts of things.  Dr. Dipboye asked to what extent this could contribute to licensure issues.  A crucial part of the model licensure act is that the critical competencies can be met.
Back to the motion:  A vote is taken and it passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The practice needs analysis survey is approved.
President Tetrick inquired whether Questar has agreed to do all of our surveys. Mr. Nershi said he’d have to confirm this, but they do get to say they are our official survey vendor.  This will be quite an undertaking, so he will need to confirm.  It was suggested that one option could be, when the data are collected, to get a graduate student involved in running analyses and producing reports.
Dr. Knapp relayed that this was related to part of her concern about the proposal.  It is important to have a strong project director to make this really good. If it is all volunteer we may not have the focus needed for a good strong study.  Graduate students are great, but might need someone who really could devote the time to this. 
Dr. Bauer was on the selection committee for Questar, and remembers that they want the first try. If they aren’t interested, we can go through someone else. But the contract is with them right now.  We could get a selection committee together for this project if we do need someone else.
Dr. Truxillo asked if the feedback he should take back is that the EC is supportive of this, but we might want a more in-depth approach.  Dr, McHenry suggested they come back with a more detailed proposal, and if they need significantly more funding, we can have a dialogue. So, we approve the idea of a study, but think it is a boatload of work.  We don’t want to abandon it, but want them to come back and then we can think about whether some reserves should go to this.
Dr. Latham asked how this could be related to licensure. It will be hard for us to have serious discussions with APA about licensure if we can’t articulate to them or anyone exactly what it is that we are doing, to know if we should be licensed to do the things we are doing.President Tetrick said she didn’t think this should be totally embedded in licensure, and Dr. Latham said that it is all somewhat intertwined.  
After more general discussion, Mr. Nershi said that we do need to be really specific about what we want him to do.  Dr. Latham repeated that what is most important is to know what comes out of the survey is reality and not just certain views of reality. It needs to cover the range of a broad perspective of practitioners across SIOP.
President Tetrick suggested that Dr. Truxillo tell Dr. Silzer this is a great idea, and to give us a more specific proposal describing how this is gold standard work and all the ways it will make a contribution. 
Dr. McHenry stated a concern that we as the EC aren’t really set up to be an advisory board to this type of effort, as we only get together three times a year.  Before we suggested setting up a blue ribbon panel possibly to be headed by Dr. Borman. He’d like to go back to him again and ask him to form a high integrity panel of a handful of representative people.  Mr. Nershi wondered if this group wants to do this, and Dr. McHenry suggested that he seemed to, but if not him, perhaps Dr. Hakel or someone else. Someone who could focus on this and not also running the business of SIOP. It does need to be someone who is viewed as credible from the perspective of the hardest core academic and the hardest core practitioner.  Everyone agreed this is a great idea, and also suggested Dr. Hough as an option.
We transitioned in the last few minutes of the evening to Mr. Nershi reviewing the latest information on the Leading Edge consortium. The topic is Enabling Creativity in Organizations. They put together a great program with wonderful speakers.  The registration at this time is 116, and looking for about 200-300. It is capped at 300.
Mr. Nershi told us there is a new employee in the AO.  Her name is Kristin Ross and she is a communication specialist. She is jumping right in working on marketing, web content, and the electronic newsletter. She will also be a liaison with Paul and Wiley-Blackwell with the new journal.
Finally, in terms of the Model Licensure Act, a mass mailing was sent to the members to get comments.  Only 3 emails received so far, not sure how much else we will get. The one on the Standards got only 7 comments.  Dr. Cortina requested we return to this discussion tomorrow, and we all agreed.
President Tetrick called the evening recess at 8:00 pm.
President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 8:04 am and noted we had a lot of things to discuss today. 
President Tetrick reported that APA has a task force looking at the Model Licensure Act. The school psychologists are upset about a clause that disallows masters level people – they will have to change their title.  She asked Dr. Blanton to head our task force on this, and the council reps will be on it.  They will be there at APA when it comes to the floor.  Dr. Blanton clarified that this should be happening in January.
Dr. Blanton said the last time they did something like this was 20 years ago.  They made suggestions to the states that there should be some similarity and uniformity in licensure laws across the states. The states are all very different.  All this really is is a recommendation from APA to the states.  Simultaneously the Association of State Psychology Boards is doing their own version of this and there are some differences.  They are concerned about protecting the public. This will take about 2 years to get out, and then enact it.  She said she is going to a meeting to do some lobbying and figure out what they are doing. As one example, some states allow practice across state lines for 30 vs. 60 days.
Dr. Blanton explained that she has committee members paying attention to various states. She keeps a grid that tracks what the laws are like across states.  President Tetrick suggested we might be able to get this up on the website. Dr. Blanton believes that there is a nice link on ASPPB (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards) that might be better, but she can work on something for our website too.
President Tetrick reported that Dr. Tippins is chairing a task force on credentialing.  We don’t necessarily favor licensure, but we do support our members who want to be licensed.  One issue is that there is a need for supervised experience and it is difficult to get this as not many I/O psychologists are licensed.  Some states are good about allowing for alternative ways to meet this criterion.  A problem though is when they decided how to do this without our input.  Not many of our people are active in state associations. We need to get more people affiliating with their state associations. They often have lobbyists who are very professional and active and can be helpful.
Dr. Cortina mentioned that if we just targeted a dozen states, we could probably cover most of our membership. Even if just one person could be encouraged to get involved in each state’s board.  We need to encourage folks to do this.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell pointed out that traditionally the folks that have thought about state affairs have been in practice. There may be some value to getting some academic folks involved. We may need to think about issues of curriculum design to satisfy licensing or credentialing, and we aren’t versed in this.  We could be giving no information or bad information to students who eventually need to get licensed.  So, we need to be clear in explaining to people all the reasons they might want to be on this type of committee.
President Tetrick said this is a nice segue into Dr. Tippins’ task force. She wants 8 members, with major areas of employment represented. She wanted to know if we have any recommendations for her.  Dr. Bauer suggested Dr. Mike Campion.
Dr. Cortina thinks that the committee has to have on it some people who have been privy to some of these types of discussions over the last five years.  President Tetrick said that another dimension of balance is the length or perspective people have, as things have changed a bit over the years.
Dr. Knapp said that HumRRO and PDRI and Valtera hire PhDs to do practice, so it might be good to talk to them in terms of what they need.  Dr. Dipboye also suggested other corporations like Microsoft as well. 
Dr. Knapp emphasized that it is very important to educate ourselves on this. The idea that we can keep going under the radar is not very realistic.  Different models of different professions may or may not apply to us, but it will be helpful to gather information.  President Tetrick agreed and says it’s time for us to think more broadly about what might be best for SIOP members.  Dr. Blanton also suggested we connect with the consulting psychology group.  Coach credentialing has gotten scary.  Dr. Knapp mentioned that she has noticed with other professionals she’s worked with from other groups that they often tend to jump right in for voluntary certification.
Dr. Cortina thinks that it is very important for everyone to read the Model Licensure Act if they haven’t already; it makes things pretty clear.  President Tetrick thinks we should not only send comments to SIOP but also to APA.
Dr. Dipboye raised questions concerning the specific developments that have come about to lead to this revision.  Dr. Blanton talked about the increase in people doing coaching and individual assessment; testing is also a concern.  Researchers and teachers are still exempt, but if you are a researcher with a consulting practice on the side, this makes it sound like you should be licensed.

President Tetrick emphasized that the more noise we make about this the more exposed we become. In the long term the more devastating impact would be in order to put in an RFP for a project you must be licensed.
Next, we moved on to the conference update.  Mr. Nershi informed us that the deadline was the 12th and we had a record number of 1299 submissions. We used revised submission software that was in testing for almost 6 months. There were a couple of hiccups along the way but hopefully it went smoother. The program committee will meet on Tuesday, and the process of assigning reviewers should be much more efficient and automatic.
Dr. Doug Pugh is working on lining up a big-name speaker.  There are a few people being considered, but too premature to discuss. Everything is progressing well.  One of the nice things we’ll be adding is an optional tour of wine country. This might keep people longer. They are also working on a nice reception for Saturday to wrap things up.  On Friday there will be no general reception.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell inquired whether the EC meeting will be all day on Sunday, and if we will have a dinner or not.  This is our big meeting, and we will have to discuss how long we are going to meet. Dr. Latham will be taking over then.
Mr. Nershi added that we have 8 hours of designated EC time and we got 8 hours worth of requests.  If anyone had new requests, would have to speak now or forever hold their peace. Dr. McHenry asked if we should have a governance session in there, and President Tetrick suggested that that could go in the town hall meeting that is in there.  Dr. Pearlman said that was a great idea, and Dr. Truxillo and Dr. Finkelstein laughed at the memory of when we tried to do something similar in LA and barely anyone showed up. We need to look at these things critically and make sure people attend.  President Tetrick suggests we can advertise through the consortiums.  We also talked about the session on funding and the Federation.  Dr. Truxillo wants to get feedback to Barb and Dr. Hough to make sure we have good attendance.  We need to get people in there that represent many different sources of funding.
It was asked who typically shows up for the Education and Training session. It used to be just program directors, but Dr. Barnes-Farrell mentioned it has morphed over the years and recently there are more people who train in masters or undergrad I/O programs.  President Tetrick said that there is a track this year specifically on education, so it would be a great year to make sure the word gets around on the program directors list as soon as the time is assigned.
We discussed the time slots and blocks for fitting things in.  Dr. Truxillo asked for a motion to approve the EC block.
Dr. Knapp suggested that we work on a title for the practitioner needs survey that is broader – we want to attract everyone who is interested in practice.  An academic might look at this and not care, but we want them to care.  People agreed that was a good idea.
Dr. Latham makes the motion to approve the EC block for the conference, and Dr. Truxillo seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The EC meeting block for the SIOP conference in San Francisco, 2008, is approved.
The next piece of business is that LGBT asked to have a silent auction fund raiser to raise money to support their poster award.  They also wanted to expand their reception time where they would do the auction.
Dr. McHenry said he is not opposed but has bookkeeping questions.  Do these funds sit in SIOP or in the Foundation?  What are the tax implications? 
Mr. Nershi said officially $20,000 is needed before a fund is officially established, so the foundation covers at first until it is up and running; therefore he thinks it sits with the foundation.
President Tetrick said the broader issue is whether we want individual groups doing fundraising activities at the conference.

Discussion ensued about whether this would compete with other things, and if weshould sanction this sort of activity across the board rather than allowing it to keep coming up piecemeal. Many commented on the creativity of this committee in funding this award. To recap, President Tetrick said she is hearing that we are ok with this plan, but need to know how this money is being accounted for.  Mr. Nershi added we should be clear that the approval is for this year. Dr. McHenry is inclined to be directive that the money go to the foundation, assuming they are ok with this.
Dr. Truxillo moved to approve the LGBT silent auction and that the funds go to the foundation.  Dr. Cortina seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: LGBT silent auction at the 2008 conference at their reception is approved, with the money going to the Foundation.
Dr. Latham brought up the next action item.  The International Standards Organization (ISO) wants to establish international standards for the creators and publishers of tests, but also for credentialing test users.  This has been assigned to a working group that will be internationally represented, and in three years they will come up with a standard that will be adopted or not.  It becomes clear this falls into SIOP’s domain.  The American groups, The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) offered to coordinate a technical advisory group (TAG). 
If we want to become a member of the project group, we need to become a member of this TAG which will be $6,000 for three years. If we have a delegate we have to pay the person’s way.  We have an opportunity to be at the first Vienna meeting, but if we aren’t in time for that we would have full voice at subsequent meetings.  If we can’t make it to Vienna we may still have input but won’t be part of the discussions nor will they be able to get our expertise. Dr. Knapp stressed the importance of this – we really have been out of the loop on this for a long time.  President Tetrick doesn’t believe that the conversation has gone so far that we couldn’t still have major input.
At first people thought it was just a testing issue, but it is more than that and becomes more important that we get involved.  Dr. Cortina asked if we could buy into this now and if we don’t get anyone to the meeting we can communicate to Dr. Camera about our issues and then next time do more? Can we say we want to be members now but not send a delegate?  It isn’t out of the question we could get someone to go at the end of October.  Dr. Latham suggested Dr. Ed Fleishman for example. Dr. Pearlman asked if this person is making a three-year commitment, or just filling this seat in October. The latter might make it easier. President Tetrick doesn’t think it needs to be the same person, but we should have a common person talking to the working group. 
Dr. Latham made the motion that we approve the three year membership to the ANSI TAG at $6,000 and we approve travel funding if we can send someone. Dr. Cortina seconds.  Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approval to join the ANSI TAG at $6,000 and to provide travel money to a delegate in October if we can find one.
Dr. Knapp suggested if we can’t find someone we can at least have a teleconference with someone in advance of the meeting.  Dr. Cortina suggested that Dr. Thayer might be good, and Dr. Pearlman suggested Dr. Jeanneret.  Other names that came up were Dr. Macy and Dr. Kehoe.
The next order of business was an update on the journal.  So far, so good. We have the commentary on the articles, and currently the cover design is being finalized. The group is going to visit Blackwell in Boston to work out some of the detail.  Dr McHenry said the topics are great so far and really focus on things of interest to the society. They’ve done a great job with this.
Dr. Bauer then gave an update on the volunteer process. They are getting it on line now, and it is going really well. They are asking for $500 to get this going.  President Tetrick asked that if we are starting a data base of who volunteers, down the road will we be able to track SIOP members and who does what.  Dr. Bauer said we could do that now but it would be a lot of work, but yes that will make that easier.  The real issue is to track and follow through with the process so if people volunteer whom we don’t need right now we have a way to track them and keep them on file.  President Tetrick said this would have been helpful to know who to appoint to what positions.  Dr. Knapp said it’s also a way of explicitly giving credit to who has been on committees.
President Tetrick said there is some validity to the perception that we keep asking the same people to do things – we have people in our head that are salient, and we may overlook other qualified people. This will also be able to provide a description of what they are being asked to do.
Dr. Bauer raised a question to the group.  They were thinking of building in an ability to evaluate people on committees, but they aren’t sure if that is a good idea or not.  Dr. McHenry is ambivalent as well. It is hard to give a 1-5 rating for people that are volunteering their time, but you also would like to nominate people for positions who have done a lot of good things.  Dr. Knapp suggested three categories – (1) didn’t participate, (2) did what they should, (3) went above and beyond.  Dr. Bauer said we could build in the capacity to do this and decide on the details later.  President Tetrick said we do need to know this now, but she is a little squeamish about it.  Dr. Latham pointed out that some of the journals do this with reviewers.  It was agreed that overall this data base will be very useful.
One other thing President Tetrick pointed out was that when she made committee chair appointments, she was amazed that some committees had so few people involved. We always pride ourself on the large number of people involved in volunteering, and it was surprising the low number on some important committees. This should help.  Dr. Bauer pointed out there used to be a committee on committees, and that kind of turned into a joke, but this would serve a similar purpose.  We also should talk to Dr. Kraiger about this and coordinate with the new governance structure.  Dr. Knapp also suggested we have a senior person help with this. Dana Born has expressed an interest in getting involved more in SIOP. She is an Air Force general officer and terrific to work with.
President Tetrick mentioned that we have the ability to have liaisons to boards and committees in APA. She is going to try to identify people to go to meetings in DC, which can increase our visibility in APA – that’s how they get to know I/O psychologists exist. It would be wonderful if we could get that for APS too. Dr. Hakel was very involved at one point but not sure if he is anymore. We are doing well getting a program presence.  Dr. Knapp asked if on the volunteer form it would be just for committees or could we add this too?  Dr. Bauer said she would work on a draft to send around for everyone to see, and Mr. Nershi said he’d send around a link to get suggestions.
The next item is the Institutional Research Committee. Dr. Bauer asked two different people to head it up and they both turned her down. This is the committee to do an inventory of all surveys, make recommendations of procedures and policies that will make sure we won’t lose any data.  She thought this would be good for a mid-level person. Jumping ahead to the governance thing, maybe this will work with Science and Practice?  Several names were circulated as good  potential folks for this position.
Dr. Bauer asked if we have a place where we keep this.  Mr. Nershi said we have summaries but not the data base.  Mr. Nershi met with Dr. Highhouse and established a list of what is being sent to the archives in Columbus. We need to clarify what data we will cover with the IRC. President Tetrick said if we are going to have a big effort like this it should cover everything. 
President Tetrick called for a break at 9:50 AM.
President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 10:02 AM.
The next item to be discussed is the Teaching Institute. This was put forth with a certain lifetime that is coming to an end and we have to ask if it should continue.  What were the goals of the teaching institute? Dr. Barnes-Farrell said as she recalls the nature of it, Education and Training and CEMA had a conversation – initially it was a diversity issue. How can we get underrepresented groups to learn more about I/O? They have focused on both the college and high school level.  Dr. Cortina said they had meetings with historically black colleges and universities at George Mason and in New Orleans –talked about I/O and career opportunities. The last one is scheduled for Atlanta. President Tetrick said that they may have build unmet expectations at the one at George Mason. Perhaps we need to do more than just spread the word, but help give people the experiences they need so they will have the tools to get into grad school. Dr. McHenry suggested this was great but now it might need to be a broader effort.  We have a toe in the water, are we going to go swimming?
President Tetrick suggested we might need a group to look at this and think how we might want to continue and modify it. It seems to belong under E&T. Dr. McHenry said CEMA should be involved too. Dr. Barnes-Farrell said the origin wasn’t just a diversity thing – it was supposed to be about undergrad institutions where they didn’t have I/O.
Dr. Knapp agreed it is not enough to communicate what I/O is, but we need to let them know what they need to do to get into it and how they can get those opportunities.  Dr. McHenry reiterated that we need a more holistic solution.
Dr. Truxillo brought up that a lot of this took place before we had such a web presence. Some of this could be accomplished through the website – like what to do to get into graduate school. We may need more availability of internships and mentoring relationships. Dr. Dipboye suggested the masters programs should be working closely with this as well.
Mr. Nershi pointed out that, looking at the report, there doesn’t seem to be much of an  impassioned plea to keep this going. A lot of initiatives are going to be developed and that might be a lot to manage. President Tetrick said E&T should work with CEMA in anticipation of this.

Is a motion needed?  Dr. Dipboye makes a motion to task E&T and CEMA to review the teaching institute and come up with a future plan for possible new programs for preparing underrepresented groups for I/O. Dr. Finkelstein seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: E&T and CEMA will review the teaching institute and come up with a future plan for preparing underrepresented groups for graduate school in I/O psychology.
We want it to go on record that we thank the group for all their work and appreciate their efforts, and we encourage them to continue with the plans in Atlanta.  Also, Dr. Mike Burke was instrumental in getting this going, so he might be a good person for the group to talk to.
Next, Dr. Truxillo gave an update to KARE. As everyone knows they had 4 workshops in New Orleans after Katrina; they hired a PR firm to help get the word out.  They have continued to work with Tulane and the local SHRM chapter.  Planning to have two new workshops. The local HR chapter can get the word out to their 600 members plus other people interested. They have speakers lined up and the flyers are out and they are ready to role. Dr. Joan Brannick is speaking, and also speaking in Baton Rouge, which has also been affected in a very different way because so many businesses have moved there.  President Tetrick asked if there are plans for a TIP article on this, and Dr. Truxillo said that Dr. Tracy Rissuto, KARE chair, perhaps could do it.  Dr. Knapp also suggested they take some pictures.  There are going to be speakers on selecting to reduce turnover, and on stress.  Dr. Truxillo emphasized how great it has been to hook up with the HR chapter – they have resources to get the word out.
Dr. Latham talked about expanding our relations with EAWOP.  As everyone knows we are not on the public radar screen. To garner respect from the public, we must have numbers (size matters).  He talked to the first president of EAWOP, and the past president of Division one of IAAP, and Dr. Friese, and Dr. Hakel, and Dr. Pritchard, Dr. Perez, Dr. Hesketh, and some others.  Looking for concrete ideas – not “in spirit” ideas. We want to speak with a united voice.  He got a really positive reaction. There is a document not quite ready to distribute. It is not blue sky stuff but specifics. 
As of about 5 or 6 years ago SHRM came up with an award.  SHRM has 225,000 members, and get about 12,000 people at the conference.  Dr. Latham won the award and has been elected to the board of directors of SHRM, the first I/O psychologist, and the mandate is to come up with a vehicle of evidence based measurement.  Why would we want to reinvent the wheel when we have an organization that does all this? Dr. Latham said that now that he has this connection to SHRM and SIOP, he can say, why don’t you look to SIOP? So at some point he will come in with two hats on, member of the board of SIOP and of SHRM.  Do we want SHRM people doing Fads, Fashions, and Folderol, or doing things from a science perspective?  We want the latter.  They want to be able to go into a boardroom at Microsoft and be able to back things up with numbers rather than say “I read it in Harvard Business Review.”  The template for this is really what’s happening in medicine.  They really want HR managers to be informed by science.
Dr. McHenry pointed out that a lot of I/O people work at generalist roles (e.g., Dr. Marcia Avedon). They are engaging the people who you want to influence ultimately, and they have this great I/O perspective.
Dr. Salas asked if Dr. Latham could say more about why size is important? Dr. Latham said an example is when the nursing association talks people listen, because of size. The whole word sees psychology as clinical, so if we can speak as one, that will help.
President Tetrick next brought forth a request from SIOP South Africa. They want a scholarship to send one disadvantaged student to our conference.  We put in a request to the foundation and they denied it.  One problem was a process issue, but they also didn’t feel like graduate student travel in general was a thing they could do.  However, we really want to take our memo of understanding as something real. So, what do we suggest?
The Foundation’s operating budget is actually really small, so they don’t have a lot to play with for this. President Tetrick said, do we simply say no, or is it a legitimate request that we could move forward with at this time?
Dr McHenry asked why they aren’t funding this themselves.  President Tetrick thinks it is budgetary.  They also saw it as a concrete thing we could work together on. We are eventually hoping to work toward research collaboration. Dr. Latham’s only objection is precedent setting. There would need to be much more discussion if that was the case; if it’s just one time, maybe it’s okay.  They were planning to take the student author of the best paper from a disadvantaged student at their conference.  They asked for as much as $3500, but $2000 would cover airfare. Dr. Latham feels like their society should pick up a little of the cost.  Also, nothing is worse than feeling like a stranger among 4000 people.  Who will mentor this student?  Fred will be there to take primary responsibility, but CEMA and International Affairs will take a role too.
Dr. Latham made the motion to pay plane fare for this student and provide complementary registration, for this one time only. Dr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: SIOP will pay plane fare and waive registration for a South African graduate student selected by SIOPSA to attend the conference in 2008.
We took a short break and reconvened for the Governance Task Force discussion, giving Dr. Kraiger the floor.
Dr. Kraiger assumes everyone read the document, so he said he wants to do two things and then open it up for discussion.  Really briefly, the task force was an idea championed by Dr. McHenry a year ago, coming out of strategic planning.  There is a disconnect between how we run business and the strategic plan. Mr. Nershi shared some material on other societies that had gone through this kind of review themselves. 
Dr. Kraiger tried to define the problem in several ways for the task force, and there was a feeling from the committee that they wanted an in-depth analysis.  They conducted 26 interviews in June and early July. There is a summary provided.
One of the impressive things that came out of this is when asked “can you think of a model governance structure?” the most common answer was “you guys are it – other societies want to be like us.”  In terms of the commitment people make, the fairness in procedures, we are admired for the way we run things.  Next, we met in July in this very room (Dr. Barnes-Farrell and Mr. Nershi were there as well), and we looked at data and processes. That’s how we got to this point.
Next he went page by page to make a couple of points.  For examplewe discussed representation of constituencies in society.  There was lots of talk about this.  Practitioners were one.  International members and students could be others.  In the end, after much discussion the decision was that we need to structure the board about the business of the society and the strategic plan, and not constituencies.
Early in the process it was proposed that one of the roles be reserved exclusively for a practitioner.  There was pretty clear consensus that we don’t want to set up the structure that way, but around the strategic plan.  One of the areas deals with practice, and so it makes sense a practitioner would gravitate to that role, but it is not required.
Another thing emerging from the interviews dealt with issues of accountability. What about a committee chair not doing their job; what is the enforcement process? We need greater accountability between committees and their representatives to the board. 
Another thing that emerged was the tremendous learning curve.  For board roles and committee chairs – we have to help people get up to speed faster. There is a perception that business slows right around the time new people are elected and new chairs are appointed.
They wanted to define positions to the strategic plan AND to key services of SIOP, which is very important. How do we set up a structure that meets those goals? 
They also had a number of discussions about the role of APA representatives.  It is mentioned in here but bears repeating publicly. There have been a number of APA reps there. They tend to be more senior in the sense of extremely knowledgeable. They bring a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge and memory, which is a key to the function of this committee.  People can recall Dr. Macy and Dr. Tippins and the key roles they played, for example.
Dr. Kraiger asked now for any questions on the background data.
Dr. Cortina said he really likes the idea that the new positions target the things SIOP is supposed to be doing.
Dr. Pearlman asked if this all fell out pretty easily in the content analysis.  Dr. Kraiger said sort of – and they hadn’t thought about how it would look going in.  There will be nine positions, we can call them officers for now, and as long as we are electing people into them for three years, we need to have multiples of three to make this work. This seems to make sense, and for everyone who has ever served in that kind of role, they know the first year is a learning curve.  So, we felt like we needed 6 or 9.  There was clearly at least 6 and probably 7. So, the difficulty was coming up with 7, 8, and 9 that made sense.  The last three listed are the last three generated. These have a bit of a different feel; they link up with the stuff we have, but that’s where some of the messiness comes in.
President Tetrick asked about the APA reps. From her perspective, it seems like we often end up with APA representatives likely being past presidents, and she doesn’t think we’ve used them to full advantage.  Our present reps are the exception; they have certainly been more active. The thing that hangs her up a bit on this is that only APA members can vote for APA reps. What she wonders is rather than changing the APA rep role so they are here but can’t vote, maybe we want to expand the role of the reps. Maybe we could have parallel elections so we would have one thing to report to APA but our whole membership could be voting.
Dr. Kraiger responded that of the different recommendations made by the tasks force the role of the APA reps ex officio is probably not one of the ones they hold strongest, so if there is a strong feeling that you wanted to keep them having a vote, that probably wouldn’t create problems for the things we are doing.  He likes the direction they went but it is not a big deal.  He asked Dr. Barnes-Farrell to chime in if she wanted to, but it is his memory that most of the discussion around APA council reps recognized that the service provided going to the APA meetings is time demanding.  Another theme that runs through this is that they wanted to balance everyone’s time across positions.  They didn’t make a conscious choice not to give them more work, but steered this way because they want them at the EC meetings as they frequently are influential in discussion, but there was an issue around the disproportionate weight they have in the voting.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell said that the number of voting members seemed to get unwieldy with the new plan, so they wanted to make it manageable. There was an issue of whom they report to, and that they are only elected by the APA members.  We do want them to be an integral part of what is going on, but we don’t want them necessarily to be a swing vote.
Dr. Cortina asked if people understood that our votes are almost always unanimous?  It isn’t like we are ever swinging votes.  Dr. Kraiger said yes, many members of the task force have been at EC meetings.  This wasn’t specifically expressed at their meeting, but Dr. Kraiger said he did think of this.
Dr. Dipboye agreed they have a big vote, but not having a vote from any APA rep seems kind of weird because we ARE Division 14..  So long as we have some kind of official legal connection to APA, there should be some kind of vote.
Dr. Kraiger echoes what Dr. Barnes-Farrell says about wanting to keep voting members at some reasonable number.  They did talk about the possibility of one vote for all the reps, or a senior rep having a vote.
Dr. Knapp said that many members have APA as the parent organization, and we need to be helping them get the most out of their membership with them. When we have 5-6 reps we kind of operate like a leaderless group. Maybe it would be helpful to have a chair in the group?  Not sure how to do that though.
Dr. Dipboye asked if APA bylaws define how each Division has some kind of binding decision.
Dr. Knapp added that when APA members vote they should be thinking about APA and what’s good for them. We also want the same thing for SIOP; we want them to vote for what’s best for SIOP.
Dr. Kraiger said the goal is to create a structure that lasts a long time.  Dr. Dipboye’s comment about the bylaws is important.  For example, it requires us to have a Secretary, and we proposed to get rid of this position.  It’s Dr. Hakel’s feeling, and we trust his instinct, that that just means there is a person that APA can contact and that it could be a person in the AO or another member of the board. We do need to review the APA bylaws, and we haven’t done that in advance.
So, Dr. Kraiger asked, what is the overall desire of the group in terms of council reps?  We can go back and think about it more but it doesn’t seem that any data that has surfaced during this discussion is different than what we had before.
President Tetrick said that one thing that went through her mind is that if you are going to go to APA council meetings and come to EC meetings but don’t have a collective vote, isn’t that going to create problems for getting people to run for council rep?  Dr. Barnes-Farrell said they did discuss this; part of it isn’t if you vote or not but if you have an influence or not. Does anyone care what we say?  Her response is yes.  It never seems like anyone really cares what people’s role is in these meetings, everyone is heard equally. So, from her perspective, it wouldn’t really have much impact.
Dr. Dipboye commented that perhaps they would have the same issue with people running for these positions. The member at large role has had nebulous responsibilities.
Dr. Salas said when he ran for the council the attractive part for him was getting to be here at the EC, not going to APA.  He thinks it doesn’t make sense to have no vote.  He thinks it makes sense to have thirteen voting members, and one is a voting APA council rep. 
Dr. Kraiger said that as a practical suggestion, let’s let this point rest for now and come back later.  Tomorrow will want to know something specific to go back to the committee with.
We’ve already kind of moved into a discussion of recommendations. He’d like to highlight a couple of things that they are looking for some direction on.  For example, the 4 year vs. 3 year presidency. This is a really complex position and there is a long time needed to learn what’s done.  They also want to expand the responsibilities of the President-Elect to a role of leadership development, working with potential committee chairs or elected officials. 
There was a strong consensus about eliminating the financial officer position, and including these responsibilities with the nine officials, but will also have a relationship with the AO and the board. Dr. Cornwell, having done that position felt good about it, and Dr. Pearlman gave a thoughtful response to that with some concerns, and Dr. Goldstein had raised some of the same issues. Primarily the concern is that an I/O person should have some responsibility for our money and reserves; sort of a checks and balances idea.  It is a significant amount of money and there is a long term responsibility to what happens to it. This responsibility should be evenly distributed.
Dr. Kraiger said he thinks that the person who has the role should still maintain that responsibility.  But, keeping it as the financial officer would be adding to the current responsibilities and adding an interface role to it.
Dr. Bauer asked what the idea was behind the personnel committee. Dr. Kraiger replied it relates to managing our relationship with Mr. Nershi and the AO office, and handling personnel issues there, such as the educational policies for the staff, or grievances.
President Tetrick said maybe she’s been married to a lawyer for too long, but she’d like to look at the implications of having an elected officer vs. not doing some of these things.  Dr. Pearlman added that without the legal perspective, to him it is also an issue of the public face. There might be some value in the title and having the visibility as an important and serious responsibility.
Dr. Kraiger said right now Mr. Nershi has a lot of interactions with President, Secretary, and Financial Officer. Some of that may change.  If we pulled out the financial oversight piece, and left financial officer in, would there be enough work for this person to do without that. Mr. Nershi thinks yes.  What’s being suggested now based on discussion is that maybe they could leave the financial officer position alone or add other things.  Dr. Cortina said that they can’t really do their job without dealing with the Foundation. 
What they are trying to do is clarify the duties; not just adding stuff but might be subtracting some things that Linda and Dave do.  They’ve got some things covered, but it’s just never been official. Want to spell out all they can to make this an appropriate sized role, but it sounds like there isn’t certainty in what might be added or disappear.
Dr. Bauer mentioned we talked about having a volunteer coordinator before, who would help figure out who is groomed for different positions. Maybe the personnel committee could look after the AO and the volunteers.  Dr. Kraiger said they talked about this but haven’t resolved this yet.  Dr. Bauer said they are getting the volunteer process on line now but there is no one overseeing it.
Dr. Knapp suggested that some of the titles of the positions could be revised to be targeted more to the strategic plans.  For example, promotion of SIOP to parent organizations is a little bit different than external relations per se. That involves trying to maximize the benefits we get from parent organizations.
Dr. Kraiger said what they’ve been doing is listing out all the key function sand coming up with ok but not optimal category names by trying to group services or functions.  One thing we need to clarify now is the descriptor of the responsibilities and the link to the strategic plan.
Dr. Dipboye pointed out that the membership will need to be educated about these positions and know if they would or would not want to run for specific duties.  Dr. Kraiger said they envisioned organizing the nine in such a way that there would be a more practice oriented one on each of the cycles.  So, if he wanted to run for something, it would be a specific position, and there would be a couple of sentences where he would talk about what he would want to do and what the goals would be, and maybe about how background meets goals. So, the election process should become more issue oriented and less oriented toward name recognition.  Dr. Bauer asked whether there would now be as much of a dip in year one because people will now have such a defined role.
Dr. Kraiger clarified that leadership development is almost a separate initiative. How do we bring more people into leadership?  We can have more of a clear succession plan from how you go from committee chair into one of these positions.  Dr. Bauer said even though we can try to find the best people the membership might still use name recognition.
Dr. Dipboye noticed something in the plan that stated that the board could possibly change these positions.  President Tetrick added that there could be some concern to say we are electing people to a particular role and then have them do something else, it would send a terrible message.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell and Dr. Kraiger clarified that what they meant by this is that these roles could change over time if they aren’t working; there wouldn’t be change in the middle of someone’s role.
Dr. Kraiger then asked specifically for comments from the group on the three vs. four year presidency.  There really is no manual right now for president elect. Maybe if we clarified that role more we wouldn’t have need for a fourth year.  Dr. McHenry added that if people go into president elect with an agenda they are interested on starting to work on that could be good; doing that just in the presidential year becomes challenging.  For example, Dr. Hough started the strategic planning, and he took over that.  Maybe after the election results come back, in those two months someone should sit down with the president elect and let them know they need to be thinking of stuff to be working on by summer so they can have some balls in the air to make things happen.  We also need to add clarification to the administrative manual.  It’s possible to have that year be observation, and move things on in the second year, but that isn’t a long time.  You kind of get a year of observation if you have been on the EC before, but a lot of the presidents were not in an elected office right before.  Some other organizations have the president elect serve as program chair.
Dr. McHenry summed up that you can do this in three years, but you really need to be thinking about an agenda right away and not taking a breather in the president-elect year.  Perhaps it would also be possible to hold the election a little earlier to give the person more time?  Just thinking out loud.
Dr. Kraiger added that when they thought about the 4 year possibility, they were envisioning more responsibilities given to the president elect over the two year period.  But, hearing this discussion it seems like no one is really arguing in favor of the 4 year.  Does this mean a preference for three, or a preference for lunch?
Dr Latham said he is neutral on this. He is very impressed with this task force.  If this task force wanted us to give careful consideration to this idea, we should.  He said he knows a lot of past presidents very well, so he didn’t come in feeling shell shocked.  He is highly respectful of the people advocating for this change.
Dr. Pearlman added that one way to think about this is that we are basing things on assumptions we don’t know for sure are true.  Would it be tougher to attract people for four years?  Everything happening here in this plan is moving us toward greater clarity of function, more formal assignment of responsibilities. That might make it easier to keep the current three year cycle.  Dr. Cortina suggested we just try to do stuff better, and see what happens. If down the line we think we might need four years, we can reconsider.  President Tetrick commented that we have a relatively flat organization now, and this sounds a little more hierarchical. Is that where we want to go?
We took a break for lunch, and reconvened at 1:00 pm.
President Tetrick asked for any lingering comments to share with Dr. Kraiger, understanding that we will continue to talk about this this evening and wrap it up in the morning.
Dr. Cortina said that the genesis of the task force in the first place was partially about matching strategy and structure, but also more that this board is typically comprised of academics and not enough practitioner representatives, and he isn’t sure how this will fix it.  Dr. Kraiger agrees this might not do it, though doesn’t know if it was a driving issue, though certainly a concern.
In the data collection there was a concern about representation on the board.  The decision we made as a committee was that the board shouldn’t be organized around that, but should be around member services.  There are risks around that; we don’t want to alienate practitioners.  They did an interview with the former president of Division 13.  Their thinking is really creating the board around what members need. The thinking was that if the different positions are providing clear information about how everyone is receiving value from their duties, the practitioners should be happier if they are seeing how what happens here contributes to that. Dr. Cortina was happy with that answer.
Dr. Latham added that prior to 15 minutes ago he was indifferent about the plan. Then, he chatted with Dr. McHenry and Dr. Kraiger over lunch and now he is excited about it.  He asked Dr. Kraiger to tell the group what he told them.  He cam into this thinking about what they were trying to fix. The members at large don’t always know what they are supposed to do.  LRP has gone away, and the cluster system is broken; there are very heterogeneous clusters that don’t fit well together. Now the task force has created a system with 9 clearly defined roles.  It’s kind of like clusters, but different because there will now be such a clear role assigned to the leader of the area, very clear committee assignments.  We still will need to weigh in on some of the decisions around the secretary, financial officer, and APA reps, but now very excited abut the clarity that these roles will add.
Dr. McHenry added that maybe even the committees would go away. We aren’t locked into a committee structure through the bylaws.  Some leaders might want to choose to use the same committees, but this can change from year to year depending on what initiatives are coming up.  We can try different things without being locked into a bylaws-enforced committee structure.  He really likes that.
Everyone thanked Dr. Kraiger for the great job that he and his task force did.
Next we moved on to the advocacy area.  President Tetrick asked Tonia Heffner to be one of the representatives to the Federation, and she will be the other.  Since we are still in a honeymoon stage it might be good to have the president as a rep.
Dr. Ruth Kanfer is heading up the effort for the Federation presentation. This will be an aging event, and it should occur in February. It’s moving along well.
Dr. Bauer asked when we pay dues again, and Mr. Nershi thought it was sometime after January.
Dr. Knapp asked that when we are in the new governance structure, will the new reports be lined up to tie into the new areas, or the four areas the way we do them now.  President Tetrick thinks they probably haven’t worked this one through yet, so we should give some explicit thought to how the four things divide up and get presented.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell gave the APA council rep report, and passed around a summary of activities.  There will be a Science Directorate Breakfast that President Tetrick is going to get people to attend to make some connections.  Another point of interest:  APA membership is aging, which somewhat tracks our own concerns with respect to membership (how can we attract young members?).  APA doesn’t have any great solutions yet, and currently the average age in APA is 55!  A lot of people in that cohort were just socialized in graduate school that of course they would join APA, and that just isn’t what happens now. They have never known a time there wasn’t APS.  Plus, students now identify with SIOP but not with APA.
Dr. McHenry asked if we have a sense by age cohort of the affiliations of our members.  For example, do we know that those members under 40 are more likely to be APS affiliated?  Dr. Knapp agreed it would be interesting to see member counts broken down by parent organization.  Mr. Nershi pointed out that they fluctuate throughout the year.  It tends to spike right before submissions and the conference. 
Dr. Barnes-Farrell said one of the driving forces for students to join APA used to be the journal, and now a lot don’t subscribe, they just get them on line.  She also pointed out that Dr. Russ Newman is leaving APA so we should pay close attention to his replacement and make connections.
The APA website is getting revamped and they are spending a lot of money on this. Mr. Nershi was surprised to hear how expensive it was – they are really starting from scratch.  The cost is more than $7 milliion. Dr. Barnes Farrell said everyone was surprised at the price, but they approved it.
There is a task force for allocation of reps for the council, and it was asked if we could get someone on there. The initial reaction was probably, though we might not find anyone with the qualifications needed. Dr. McHenry asked what they were, and they include a lot of experience on council or board of directors. Since we only reelect once we don’t meet the experience level. This is a problem because people get on a committee and then they leave. The data presented on people who go on the board of directors indicates they often belong to 8 or 10 divisions and participate in APA council for different division. 
President Tetrick said even if we don’t have someone who absolutely fits the description, we should at least put forward names so we get some visibility.  Dr. Knapp said that no one knows who is responsible for responding to things like this.
The APA resolution against torture was also discussed. There was lots of media representation there when ethical issues on torture were discussed.  Dr. Latham questioned why this was an issue; were there people who had been pro torture?  The issue is calling on a moratorium for psychologists to be involved in any place where this goes on.  The other side to this is if you aren’t present you can’t have a positive influence at all.
President Tetrick said there was one remaining issue about the council reps. Four are going off this year, and we need to figure out a way to go back on staggered terms.  Mr. Nershi said the bylaws give the EC the authority to establish different length terms.  We can elect 2 for 2 year terms and 2 for 3 year terms, which will get us on rotation.  Dr. Bauer said how do we decide who gets which.  That isn’t clear yet.
Dr. Knapp said we still have 5 reps that aren’t being elected to do any certain thing, just rep to APA. Maybe we should think about diversity of nominees in terms of practitioner balance.  President Tetrick said that has always been a focus; sometimes it’s a matter of getting people to want to do stuff.
A question was raised as to whether we want to endorse any of the APA presidential candidates this time.  The timing ddoesn’t allow us to make a specific recommendation in TIP, though with the electronic newsletter we should be able to do that.  Even if the message is to vote for one of two of the people, we should do this routinely because it does make a big difference.  President Tetrick thinks we need a policy statement about what we should do routinely in terms of this.  Dr. Dipboye recalls that when Dr. Ryan was president that might have been in the works. Mr. Nershi said he would check the old minutes for this.
Getting back to the torture issue, Dr. Pearlman asked if there was some precipitating event that made it come up.  Dr. Barnes Farrell said it has been coming up for a really long time, even before their time on the council. There was bad press for APA several years ago.  Whenever APA gets in the news, it is really about psychologists in general.  There is concern that people can reverse engineer techniques for resisting torture to learn how to torture.  If we don’t vote on this as a moratorium we will be dragged through the coals.  There were protesters outside the hall where we were meeting, including a guy dressed up like a person being tortured.
We turned now back to the vote on staggering terms.  Dr. Cortina made a motion to institute staggered terms and Dr. Knapp seconded.  It was suggested that Mr. Nershi work with APA to determine the best staggering.
ACTION ITEM: Staggered terms for APA council representatives is approved.
Dr. Knapp has worked with APA staff to start a listserv to integrate all of the science based divisions so we can see if we have common interests to advocate for. At this point there has not been any activity on the listserv, in part because we don’t seem to have the kind of issues that we want to get up and fight for like the clinical oriented ones on prescriptions, for example, If we have nothing to fight for maybe we don’t need to worry about it too much.
There are also several caucuses, like the women’s council. Their first meeting is open and then the 2nd one just for women.  There are other ones like an early career caucus. Several could be of interest to us but we’d have to spread ourselves thin.
Dr. Latham said what about the human factors division, the military division, etc. – can they join us to take on APA about the model licensure act? We may need to handle that within the family first. We are a divided house on this, and it is hard to go to APA as a house divided. We need to do this internally before we rally the troops.
Dr. Dipboye things we need to think ahead before the next meeting as a source of discussion. Dr. Cortina thinks we need to come up with a policy of our own; we need to have an alternative. Dr. Dipboye thinks he may be able to find some allies in other groups.

Next we changed the topic to the new book series that Dr. Salas has been working on. He said this is our third meeting we’ve discussed this.  He has gone to several publishers and had decided that APA would be the best choice. He met with three of the people there that really like the idea and want to pursue it.  He has a draft of what a contract might look like.
He asked them questions in regard to revenue sharing, the price range, the name, page limits, etc.  He introduced a handout with answers to these questions. For example, we would get a share of 15% or more of the royalties.  The editors can get up to 2%; they suggested maybe the authors but we don’t usually do that.
Dr. Salas proposed 6-8 chapters per volume, about 400 pages.  The price would range from about 60-70 dollars.  He is envisioning 2 editors -one science and one practice, and proposes they meet every year to talk.  The name they are working with right now is The APA Review of I/O Psychology Science and Practice. 
He opened the floor up here to discussion.
Dr. Latham asked what gap this is filling, and relatedly, how would this be additive to the Frontiers Series.  Also, there is an international annual review that comes out each year, what’s different here?
Dr. Salas said the Handbook gets dated very quickly. Every year here there would be different reviews, mirroring the Annual Review of Psychology. There would be more frequent updates than a handbook. The reason he chose APA is to link ourselves more with them on the publishing side.  That other series doesn’t seem to be in competition because of the price range, that it is European based, and not well publicized.
Dr. Latham asked how different would this be than when the Annual Review of Psychology writes an I/O type chapter.  Dr. Salas said that doesn’t happen all that often; it would be similar in style, but quicker.
Dr. Dipboye asked if he had any idea about the revenue stream on this.  Dr. Salas said if half of our membership (including students) bought the book they would be happy.
Dr. Pearlman asked if this was our proposal or theirs?  In other words, is this Dr. Salas speaking or what APA is saying?  With the journal there was a lot of back and forth negotiation – is that in the picture?  Dr. Salas said he thinks this is close to what Frontiers gets.
President Tetrick asked if this would impact the Frontiers series or Practice series books?  Dr. Salas reiterated that there would be 6-8 topics per year here, representative of both science and practice, vs. a book all devoted to one topic.
It was mentioned that whoever agrees to be editor is going to have their hands full, particularly if no pay or royalties.  Dr. Salas said it is a matter of finding people to do the chapters, get a board to do some peer reviewing, and that’s it.
It was asked if the topics would cycle every few years? Yes, it was clarified that is true.
Dr. Salas said he is sensing that a lot of people are not so enthusiastic any more about this.  Mr. Nershi asked what the downside is of this.  It’s a chance for people to get published and get this information out there. Not sure why it would be a problem.
Dr. Pearlman said there are still a lot of questions remaining. We may need more structure on this before we make any decisions; it is not clear what we are being asked to do at this point.

Dr. Salas said that we’ve been talking about this for a long time, and he thought we were supposed to be moving it ahead.  Dr. Pearlman said he just doesn’t want fundamental questions to end up being asked in the very late stages, and is uncomfortable signing something without all the detail.
President Tetrick suggested that Dr. Salas more completely develop the structure, including the process, editor selection, board selection, topic selection, example topics.  Dr. Salas said some of those things we would do the same as the Frontiers series.  Dr. Knapp said she was expecting a more detailed plan before getting to the contract stage.  There are a couple of alternatives for some things here and we should have some answers to help us figure out how we will be competing with other projects.
Dr. Salas said that he thinks that we’ve talked about these kinds of things, but that if there is resistance to the idea now he will table it.  Dr. Dipboye asked if this contract is exactly what a contract would look like, and the answer was that it was not finalized yet.
Dr. Latham is afraid the market is getting flooded with the same writers doing the same thing.  Will this just be another thing academics can put their name on.  Dr. Salas replied that the kicker is that we have a practice side here to; the chapters will be balanced across.
Dr. Latham asked what if they were science and practitioner coauthored chapters?  Those kinds of articles can be fun to write and interesting to read, and there is less likely to be something similar on the market.
Dr. Salas said he once tried to put together the SIOP Solutions Series, and couldn’t find any practitioners to do it.  But, Dr. Latham said, this would be just a chapter, not a whole book, and maybe if the academic coauthor took the lead it wouldn’t be as time consuming.
Dr. Bauer said that she would love to have something like this to focus on when wanting to learn about the latest on a topic.  Dr. Cortina agreed.
Dr. Pearlman said he doesn’t like the idea that it is the “APA review of…” and everyone agreed.  Also, Dr. Pearlman asked that the distinction with the journal be more clarified.  Drs. Cortina and Truxillo said they didn’t even see the overlap.
Dr. Bauer said that we need not to stop the train when it is running. Dr. Salas said what he is getting here is that he needs a much more detailed prospectus of what the series is going to look like; everyone wants more details.
Mr. Nershi said that currently the Journal isn’t located clearly anywhere in the committee structure. Maybe we should have the publishing enterprises housed together, and look at how they all fill unique needs and where there is overlap. 
Dr. Bauer brought up a couple of contractual issues. Usually we do SIOP pricing so members get a discount. Also, the way currently phrased it sounds like APA could end the contract at any time; we should have some kind of advanced notification if terminated. Also, what would happen to the intellectual property if we were terminated.
Dr. Pearlman said he still sees the content as something to be talked about.  The structure is important. What will help sell this to the desired market? There just isn’t enough here to know right now. There are a lot of interesting possibilities that could impact the value.  For example, we may have 12 topics that come up on a schedule, and some that come up once in a while.  The ways this stuff is structured can really impact the appeal and marketability.
Dr. Latham reiterated that Drs. Bauer and Cortina said they would like having just one place to look for information.  If you frame it as the latest newest stuff everyone had to know on things that are packed at the workshops:  performance management, coaching, etc., it would probably really sell.
Next we switched gears to discuss a proposal from the visibility committee.  At last year’s strategic planning meeting there were recommendations for PR for SIOP. We got responses from 6 firms, and 3 were invited to give presentations. These were done as a teleconference and online meeting.  There is a table of comparison on page 23 of the briefing book.  The visibility committee decided that Marketing General is the one they are recommending.  They have done brand development with similar associations, and they have expertise that goes beyond marketing.
Their first suggestion for us is a communications and marketing audit.  They will work with brand development and public relations. They will target articles to top media in the country, but also develop micro topics – smaller stories to shoot out – and propose the development of regional speakers bureaus.  We can use the San Francisco meeting as a platform to promote SIOP and I/O. They are looking at a long term emphasis on brand development, and a short term emphasis on PR and marketing.
The visibility committee is requesting $70,000 to be approved as an allocation. At this time they are not asking for approval to spend it.
Dr. Latham made the motion to approve, and Dr. Bauer seconds it.  Open to discussion.
Dr. Latham said SHRM has used them for 15 years. He said they need some direction to start but they are great; rates them an A. Mr. Nershi also has worked with them before at a different organization. They are different from the other firms looked at because they have more experience with these sorts of things. They market conferences and book series.  There is more of an emphasis on marketing and not just public relations.
Dr. McHenry said he supports this but wants to ask about branding. Are we branding SIOP or I/O psychology?  Both or either is possible but we should give the visibility committee a clear direction on that.  Dr. Pearlman says he remembers this question being asked before but doesn’t remember the answer.
Dr. Truxillo said part of the strategic plan is to make SIOP the source for all things I/O.  Dr. Latham wants to see everything he sees in USA Today say “SIOP says…”  I/O markets us individually, SIOP markets us as an organization we are proud to belong to.  Dr. Latham strongly urges that we get out in the media that unless SIOP says it it can’t be true.  Or, Dr. Pearlman said, if SIOP says it it must be true.
Mr. Nershi said they get media requests every week and do have a system in place, but this will help a lot with what we are already asked to do.  Right now Mr. Nershi or Mr. Boutellle talk to a reporter, do a search to see who is most appropriate, contacts them and hooks them up, and then gets feedback from both parties.
Dr. Dipboye pointed out that he is not familiar with PR and marketing jargon.  Dr. Latham said some of it sounds like they are doing a job analysis on us and charging us for it; we don’t need them to do it, we want them to get down to brass tacks. Mr. Nershi clarified that they will ask how members, outsiders, competitors view us, and how does that differ from what we would like to be.  People laughed at the word “visioneering”, though we liked it.  We joked we might need a translation booth for meetings.  Mr. Nershi said they might need to come to an EC meeting or a visibility meeting. He also said that despite all the jargoning in the proposal, he knows the president and he is a straight shooter and action oriented.
Dr. Dipboye said that one delicate issue he sees is a fine line between promoting the science and practice of I/O vs. specific products, and we tend to stay away from that.  Dr. Latham thinks there is 100% agreement that it isn’t about products it is about us.  Mr. Nershi said Marketing General is set up to sell exhibit booths, and we could benefit from their expertise in sponsorships.
Dr. Latham said this vision gives pause in one regard and that is that we have some interest in collaborating with some of the organizations that we want to differentiate ourselves from. Just throwing the caution out there that we don’t do things that make it harder to collaborate.

Dr. Pearlman asked if there is a comfort level that with Dr. McHenry’s question – is this about I/O or about SIOP?  He is in agreement, and can’t think of any way that SIOP marketing doesn’t promote I/O in its wake.
Dr. Dipboye was taken aback by the price, in that it seemed low to him.  Mr. Nershi said the branding thing seems commensurate with what he has seen, but the PR part is a little low. He thinks they are choosing a smaller and more targeted approach to start.
We went back to the vote, and it was unanimous.
ACTION ITEM: We approve the recommendation to allocate $70,000 to work with the firm Marketing General. 
Next, Dr. Pearlman gave the Foundation Update. He reported that it was business as usual.  The only thing that came up specifically relevant to SIOP was the request to fund a student from SIOPSA to attend the 2008 SIOP conference, which had been referred to the Foundation from the EC following the May EC meeting; this request was rejected by the Foundation as inconsistent with Foundation policy.
Mr. Nershi talked about the upgraded program building software for the conference.  The submission module is done, the reviewer assignment module is done, and now they are working on the scheduler and the output for the printed program.  So, at this point they are about 60-65% done with the total product. So far it is working very well. It has been a very complex task that seems to have gone on forever, but they are getting closer. Life will be much simpler for the program committee.  What they used to do in two weekends, now at the press of a button a lot of it can get done.
We then revisited the test vendor practices issue. Dr. McHenry said at the Spring meeting we just agreed that we would place an article in TIP reinforcing test vendor practices.  We didn’t say we would create standards or be in the business of evaluating test vendors.
Dr. Dipboye asked if we have a disclaimer, and yes there is something to that effect in TIP. Someone recalled last time we talked about maybe a couple of articles in TIP.  Someone suggested that the article get handed to the vendors, but others thought this might be condescending, as most of them are aware of the Standards.
What we don’t have clear standards around is whether we need to hand over all our data to anyone who asks us. There could be privacy issues.
Dr. Knapp said since the Standards are being revised, this might be the perfect timing to remind ourselves (the membership) about this.  It was suggested that Drs. Jeanneret and Zedeck write something for TIP to end their work on the task force.
Next, Dr. Finkelstein updated the group on the progress on the Master Calendar.  The draft as it stands now is in the briefing book. There will be two ways to view it:  All committee activities and important dates viewed by month, or within each committee, a calendar of what goes on each month.  She asked the group to skim the draft for anything that appears missing.  Several suggestions were made such as including when voting happens, when chair appointments are made, and the timelines for the Journal, TIP, and surveys.  Possibly also when fellowship applications need to be submitted to APA and APS in addition to us.  Also, yesterday we talked with Wendy about when she can let the EC know if people haven’t been nominated for certain awards – we might want that timing on here too.
The next topic was a policy on memorials.  Mr. Nershi said they haven’t discussed this much in the new conference committee.  Right now the new rule though is that nothing outside of the program can happen during program time, so they have to be at 6:00 or later.  What kind of turnout would they have?  President Tetrick would like the conference committee to consider this. Does it go in the program, or in the separate program that announces awards?  They did put them in last year, because once before they got complaints that people didn’t know about them.
Dr. Knapp suggested that the new electronic newsletter can announce it.  President Tetrick said speaking of that, it is really moving along.  The once a month timeline seems like the best idea. Mr. Nershi is cutting down on other AO emails for that.  Dr. McHenry asked if Kristin designed this, and he said with minor changes yes, and everyone thought it was great.
Dr. Pearlman switched the topic back to the earlier book series discussion.  He asked if the steam is out of this. He wonders if everything is resolved around this and doesn’t want to postpone everything for a long time. Dr. Salas thanked him for bringing that up, and said he knows what to do and will pull it together.  Dr. Finkelstein said she’d send him the parts of the previous minutes that are relevant to our older discussions on this. 
The meeting was called to recess at 4:30 pm.
The meeting was called back to order on Sunday morning at 8:05 am.
Today we have three things going on. First, we have Dr. Kraiger’s continued discussion of the governance task force recommendations, next Dr. Latham wants to talk about EAWOP and IAAP, and finally we have to set a winter meeting date.
Dr. Kraiger said his goal is to have a final set of recommendations at the winter meeting. He thought we should start by cycling back on the things we talked about yesterday, but also wants to be sure we spend time on other things.  At the heart of the proposal we are eliminating three members at large and adding nine positions.  No one brought that up – are people comfortable with that?
Dr. Bauer said she thought of it more like expanding the members at large from 3 to nine, and that is a lot. Dr. Cortina said though that we are also eliminating Secretary and Financial Officer. Dr. Bauer asked if it was possible to do 6 positions as an interim step?  It’s not like things are broken, just that they could be better.  Also, how is what’s wrong tracked specifically with the changes?  For example, how does it get people in practice more involved?  It does seem to give people more clarity.
Dr. Kraiger said the nine areas accomplish everything and they think they need them all. It could have been 8, but don’t think it could be 6; nine works well with the timing.
So, one thing is to clear up roles. With four clusters we create groupings that are more heterogeneous.  This becomes a little more hierarchical. This allows people to run for more specific positions and to articulate how they can contribute. It also allows people to focus and make a three year commitment on one particular area.
Dr. McHenry said he didn’t think there was a right or wrong answer.  He likes that for these volunteer jobs they can be scoped to a level where people can make a difference.  He agrees with Dr. Kraiger that the nine board members seem to scope things at a good level, and gives a nice size quorum to get a good diverse representation.  He’s not sure how it compares with other organizations.
Dr. Pearlman said that what we decide about the APA members may interact with this.  There may be a difference between 13 and 18 people in terms of wieldiness, which is back to Dr. Bauer’s side of the argument.  If the council reps are involved, should we have fewer board members? We need to think about the interaction of these decisions.
Dr. Kraiger said he thinks this is the more important issue.  They conceived of a set of individuals who run the business of SIOP. There are things that have to get done, and then there are things we want to get done but don’t have to, like support for instruction and practice, but we do get people doing strategic planning around those things.  We need to focus more on the year long responsibility people have, not just one who attends the meeting. We may decide 18 is too large, but these are nine tracks that are necessary to really manage the society and look out for our members.
Dr. Knapp asked if we know what percentage of our members are APA?  Mr. Nershi doesn’t know.  She said if maybe 75% were she would be inclined to say yes to all the APA reps voting, but if less maybe not.  Mr. Nershi said that many people are at one time APA members but they don’t always renew their application. They only have to be APA members at time of application, but then they don’t need to keep it up.
Dr. McHenry said he had never thought about this representation issue.  He does get concerned to make sure everyone feels enfranchised.  If we have a large number of people on the board who don’t represent the whole society, that might be a concern.  Mr. Nershi guessed that less than half of the members are APA members, if you count students.
Dr. Knapp said we are going to the staggered terms.  Perhaps the three senior APA reps can vote and the others don’t? Maybe that will manage the issue.  Initially this didn’t bother her, although didn’t like the idea of coming to meetings but not voting.  Mr. Nershi asked what might happen if the group just gets one vote. Would others not come to the meeting, and is that good or bad?
Dr. McHenry reminded the group it used to be that everyone came to the meetings (including chairs) and most people didn’t vote.  By and large 90% of committee chairs came; now they just come to the spring meeting.  People still felt committed to the organization and as if they could speak up.
Dr. Kraiger said they started the task with a very different mindset. They started to blow everything up to see what happens. Now that it’s on paper it’s harder to think that way, especially since most people weren’t in the room.  Dr. Latham asked last night, would the APA reps be perceived as part of the group or as outsiders?  Dr. Cortina thought operationally it may make no difference – we could make a plan and come back and reevaluate that piece. Or, we may be close in thinking about that and could take a straw vote.
Dr. Pearlman said maybe it isn’t as insignificant as we are making it seem.  It sends a message to the organization about the meaningfulness of the roles.  They are the messengers from SIOP to APA, whether you buy into that dynamic. What we do should be consistent.
Dr. Cortina agreed it does water down the role of the council reps. Dr. Knapp suggested we look at what some of the other larger APA divisions do.  Dr. McHenry said that we are fundamentally different as we operate so independently, but Dr. Knapp thinks maybe we aren’t as different as we think.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell added one thing with respect to whether the role gets watered down. We have been talking about APA reps not getting a vote. But, twice a year we go to APA and make votes on behalf of SIOP.  And APA takes great pains to tell us how important we are, even if SIOP itself doesn’t do it.  It is a different arena to express a formal voice, but they’ll continue voting on the APA floor. 
Dr. Dipboye was asked if he had thoughts on this.  He said that he didn’t have strong feelings.  He thinks there ought to be some vote, but it could be one or more – just not totally disenfranchised.  He is more worried about the nine positions with portfolios. It seems like it puts a lot of demands on the membership to carefully consider qualifications for the positions. Dr. Knapp likes that part, and Dr. Truxillo wondered how much people would pay attention to that.  It is a large change – how are we phasing it in?  How do they start; how do we stagger future elections?
Dr. Kraiger clarified that part of the final deliverable will include that.  There would be members at large staying on, we could phase in and vote in three until we get to all nine. The concern is how we manage the areas when there are fewer than nine. They could start with a 2 year term. This still needs to be thought through.
President Tetrick said it is hard for her to have a firm opinion on this without knowing the transition plan and if it is even doable. Mr. Nershi said to assist with the transition plan, we could look at the existing members, who is going on and off, and see if people who are carrying over can oversee a portfolio area.  It can be done, we’ll develop a chart and plot it out.
Dr. Kraiger agreed that it does require a change in mindset for the whole society.  People should see that it’s easier to get in. If no one has ever heard of me before but I share ideas and passion, and I know what to do to get involved in volunteering before I become a chair, it will be easier.  He imagines fairly brief statements  - they could be a goal for the area, or relevant experience, or passion for SIOP.  Over time norms will develop, people will win and others will ask what they did, and people will naturally follow.
President Tetrick said she wondered about this when reading it. She imagined that she’d have to have this real strategy going in – we may get the focused people but maybe lose the generalists. Dr. Kraiger said they didn’t think of this, but it might be hard to predict. Dr. Knapp pointed out that in order to be on the board more than once you would have to e able to show that you could be a generalist.  Dr. Kraiger said that if part of your portfolio is a statement of goals, you could say that while serving in this way I got ideas to take the program to the next level.  Or, Dr. Truxillo added, as conference chair I did this and we had this impact on different levels.
Dr. Kraiger said they did talk just a little about the onboarding process.  This puts pressure on them to think long before they ever run about what they will do with it.
Dr. Dipboye said the way it is now with the APA reps and members at large – as it is now, if these people goof off, there is no real damage done.  With the new plan, if we have people elected to very specific things and they goof off,  real damage coule be done. Do we have the ability to impeach or replace?
Dr, Kraiger said that triggers a thought about one thing that was left out was one of the historical roles of the members at large. The president would ask a couple of members at large to think about certain things, as an aspect of long range planning.  Now we will lose the ability to have unassigned people to do things.  Maybe we could leave the APA people in and they could be the people that do the unassigned stuff.
Dr. Dipboye said that could be good, but what he’s more concerned about is what if people don’t do the job. Mr. Nershi said he thinks there are provisions for that, but that might be for vacancy of office – if they aren’t doing their job, is it vacant?Dr. Knapp said hopefully that would be a rare occurrence.

President Tetrick said one of the reasons for the reorganization was to better align with the strategic goals. She said some of that she sees but still isn’t sure about alignment for advocacy or visibility.
Dr. Kraiger said first to get back to Dr. Dipboye, he actually believes this makes it less likely for that kind of problem to happen.  Members at large right now get very little direction.  He heard feedback that people who come into member at large are sometimes less committed to it because the role is not clear.  This requires them to know the role to even run, so it lessens the likelihood that this would happen.
Getting back to President Tetrick, this is a good question. Dr. Klimoski made the same comment, and we went through the exercise to match to the goals. They made the decision not to specifically align  - in the sense that the strategic goals are meta goals, this is more about business of the society. At least at some level all of them are represented here.  The strategic meta goals are the responsibility of the board as a whole.  At an agenda level we organize around the goals, and at some point in doing that it would become clear what the best mapping is. But, she is right, the way it is now there is nothing in the report that shows the clear mapping. President Tetrick said that she has no problem if it isn’t organized that way, but it should be explained in the document, because they start out saying that was one of the goals in the first place. Dr. Kraiger agreed.
Dr. Cortina said that he isn’t sure things really would change substantially as that the chairs and the committees do most of the actual work, not these people. So, he sees this as not as dramatic of a change as the tone of this conversation would suggest.  Dr. Kraiger agreed.  Dr. McHenry asked if we would take the committees away from the bylaws, and now allow these cluster chairs the flexibility to redesign committees as needs change?  One things we will have to clarify is the relationship between the President and the chair – is there some kind of approval process.  Mr. Nershi suggested we don’t refer to them as cluster chairs as that adds to the confusion; maybe officers.
President Tetrick thinks there needs to be some specification for coordination.  One of the board members could shuffle the whole group. They would need to coordinate with the other board members as well as with the president.  She would like them to think about how that would work.  Also, we have to have committees for people to volunteer.
Dr. Kraiger said that getting rid of committees came up today, that was not their idea.  We really could sort our existing committees into this nine. Dr. McHenry was not saying we would have to abolish it, but we could have flexibility when we needed new committees.  The goal of the task force was to come up with a structure that could exist for a long period of time.  We could sort committees in here and come up with a way that, in conjunction with the president, committees could be added or deleted according to needs.  Mr. Nershi also suggested double checking that some of the standing committees aren’t prescribed by APA (like for example Professional Practice).
President Tetrick has a couple of comments in regard to structure. Right now we have two ad hoc committees – the Teaching Institute and LGBT.  Dr. Hebl has been in charge of that since it formed, and it doesn’t get reviewed.  If we want to keep our membership involved, we can’t keep people in for life even if they are doing a great job. We need a procedure where ad hoc committee chairs get transitioned. 
Dr. McHenry raised another issue about board member tenure.  Could a board member stand for re-election, or could they roll off and then run again?  Dr. Kraiger said what happens now fairly frequently is that a term ends and the person runs for something else. It is positive that people stay on for a long time.  Dr. Bauer is worried that people may not have the experience to get on.  Dr. McHenry asked if we were saying that people would have had to be active in a committee to run, and Dr. Kraiger said no, it just might give them more credibility.  People will learn over time what works and can work on their resume, if you will.
Dr. Truxillo likes the idea of each person having a portfolio. Did it come up that they could wait until people are elected and then give them the option?  Then they would be aware of which ones would be open.  Dr. Kraiger said this is related to onboarding, and requiring someone who wants to be at the table to think about the ways they can contribute.  There will be some positions where it will probably be more difficult to come up with a slate of names than others. This should create a greater sense of inclusiveness, but Dr. Bauer is afraid it makes things seem more exclusive.  People might look at this and self select out.
President Tetrick said running for office isn’t hard, but it’s harder for people to become committee chairs.  She was reading into this that people needed experience to be eligible, and that might prompt more people to be committee chairs. People are always honored to be asked, but don’t always have the time.  Dr. Pearlman pointed out that a big component of the transition plan will be how to communicate this to people.  Maybe they should initially look at people in the remaining terms, and then when we get up to the nine, move people into running for certain responsibilities.
Dr. Kraiger said he envisioned that we do this with multiple communications over time.  He is going to write something up for TIP. There will be a lot of communication around the bylaws.  And, another article will be more detailed right before elections, and encourage people to be more inclusive. If we tell them all that now it won’t help a year from now.
Dr. Knapp recommended communicating that this is the way we are building a new governance around what we are trying to accomplish, and we are trying to foster people being elected based on what they can do rather than on their names.  Also, can make sure there is a mission associated with each of the areas and how it is related to the strategic goals.  Within everyone’s mission there could be collaboration and integration across.
President Tetrick said she hates to be a bean counter, but what would be the financial implications?  President Tetrick thinks Dr. Kraiger needs to map out the budget implications, and he agrees.
Dr. McHenry said there is a recommendation that someone should have held an elected position before one is nominated for President? If there were a group who wanted to “throw out the rascals” that would have precluded it.  He thinks its great to have experience, but it might look like power trying to hold on to power. 
Dr. Kraiger said there are several things that they are trying to accomplish, but one small issue was minimizing the onboard and wrap up time.  If a President Elect had more meaningful experience they would already understand protocol and functions.  But, they also talked about having a training manual for the President, or maybe moving the nomination period up. So there are several other solutions to it.  President Tetrick said she thought about this, and after a while there will be a large number of people who would have been on the board for some time.  Dr. Latham has not been, nor Dr. Hough or Dr. Drasgow.  President Tetrick had been an APA council rep.
Dr. Kraiger said that in the spirit of making a decision, can we all agree to take that part out? People seemed to agree.  Dr. Cortina mentioned it seems like right now people haven’t been too keen to vote for a president with no service time.
Dr. McHenry asked where we landed with the Financial Officer as a separate position. Dr. Kraiger said they haven’t decided.  We have what is proposed here, and then Dr. Pearlman made it clear that there are budget responsibilities they used to do but now the AO does it. So it could be that the primary responsibility is interface with the AO and oversight around finances.  The other option is that we leave the AO function and retain the Financial Officer.  Dr. Pearlman didn’t see the difference.  Dr. Kraiger clarified that they could still have the nine officers, and not eliminate the financial officer.  Dr. Bauer said right now all of these positions interact with the AO and they don’t want silo thinking where there would be only one person who does that.  Dr. Kraiger sees it going more in the opposite direction.  Mr. Nershi is good about communicating with everyone. But, there are needs for personnel policy issues, Mr. Nershi’s evaluation, leasing, etc, and they need a person to go to for that.  He asked for Mr. Nershi’s opinion, but his guess is that this role could be as large as anyone makes it.  Dr. Bauer thinks maybe the past president could be in that role.  Dr. McHenry thinks it could go with the financial officer or past president, but it is important for Mr. Nershi to have a connection.  Dr. Dipboye pointed out that in the past there have been difficulties for people in the financial officer position; there have been resignations.
Dr. Kraiger said they could leave the financial officer position, could have them on a rotation with two of these other positions sharing of the AO stuff.  President Tetrick was asked if as president she would want those personnel functions. She said to some extent this is how it is done now.  Dr. Kraiger said we need to lay out specifically what has to get done and written and signed by someone.  President Tetrick said she could see the past president and president having that responsibility.  Dr. Kraiger said it would be pretty easy to sit down with Mr. Nershi and think about how we could split this among the people who make sense.
Mr. Nershi said we could develop a matrix with different decisions – who to consult for different decisions depending on the levels of responsibility.  Having a protocol may be even more important than charging a particular individual.
Dr. Kraiger said he wants to know for sure what we are going to do about the council reps.  Dr. Pearlman joked that we are out of topics to continue skirting around the issue. We can decide anything and come back and change it in five years.  We need to think about the vote and whether they would come to meetings.
President Tetrick suggested Dr. Kraiger go back telling the task force that we are not comfortable with totally eliminating the vote from council reps. Dr. Kraiger said they will say, let’s just do what they want.  Dr. Cortina’s suggestion that we try something and get a sense of what we want is good.  Dr. Pearlman said if he understood that they would be coming to the meeting, he would be ok with the idea that we could pick one idea for the vote and try it. Dr. Latham said he doesn’t want to adversely affect the desire for people to run for APA rep.  Their role is important; they need to be articulate and defend us and advance the interest of SIOP in APA. If whatever we do here enhances people’s desire to do that, let’s do it, if not let’s not do it.  Dr. Salas said that a lot of the fun of being a rep is going to the EC meetings, more than the APA meetings.  He doesn’t want to take away the collegiality and fun for the next generation of Salases. Dr. Knapp said she likes the idea of 2 or 3 voting.  This deals with the issue of overrepresentation. They can wait a year or two to exercise their vote, but can still come to the meetings and have fun.  President Tetrick said following up on Dr. Latham’s logic, can we keep it as it is for now, and revisit after the transition into the nine? Dr. Kraiger clarified now it’s 8 plus the financial officer. That three year cycle will coordinate with two of the other positions, and the AO tasks will be assigned to other elected members.  Dr. Bauer asked about coordinating volunteers and it was suggested they fit that under membership.
Dr. Kraiger asked for a vote.  We voted on whether it should be no vote, one vote, senior vote, or all vote, and the All vote one by a few, so that is the recommendation he is going to move back to the task force with. We can revisit this later.
Dr. Kraiger said one last issue is to redesignate the emergency action committee. It would be reduced by one now that we won’t have a secretary.  The alternative is that it is the three senior officers.  Most people suggested it be limited to four people.
We stopped discussion of the task force, and moved to Dr. Latham’s request.  The week following the Leading Edge in Kansas City, Dr. Friese is coming to the University of Toronto to spend a week to work with him and Dr. Hakel try to put some flush into the proposal that was circulated yesterday.  He talked with President Tetrick, Mr. Nershi, and Dr. Pearlman, and they think that it would be $2,000 or less. 
The motion was put forth by Dr. Latham to hold a one day meeting in Toronto. Dr. Salas seconds.
ACTION ITEM: $2,000 was approved for a meeting in Toronto.
Dr. Bauer asked if she has to get approval of the volunteer process going on line, and the answer was no.
We moved on to finding a date for the winter meeting, and discussion of where to have it. Many cities were discussed including New Orleans, Chicago, Orlando, Dallas. We said we would think about that, and the best times are January 25-27.
There was a little discussion about what people wanted to see from Dr. Kraiger in January.  He asked if it would help to have it up to three weeks before in winter break to think about it and people liked that.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 AM.