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

Minutes of the Winter 2010 Executive Board Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

January 22, 2010
Atlanta, Georgia

Members Present: Tammy Allen, Cristina Banks, Adrienne Colella, Scott Highhouse, Kurt Kraiger, Gary Latham, Debra Major, Morton McPhail, Jim Outtz, David Peterson, Doug Reynolds, Lise Saari, Eduardo Salas, Donald Truxillo, Suzanne Tsacoumis, Howard Weiss.

Members Absent: none. 



President Kraiger called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. He acknowledged the four people leaving the board, Drs. Gary Latham, Jim Outtz, Cristina Banks, and Donald Truxillo, and thanked them for their service. He also announced the two new additions to the board, Drs. Debra Major and David Peterson replacing Drs. Deirdre Knapp and Jose Cortina.
Dr. McPhail reviewed the financial report. The Society is not back where it was financially at the end of 2008, but we have made good strides. Dr. McPhail presented a summary of SIOP’s reserves from 2008, which was created by Finance Manager Linda Lentz. There was a growth in 2009 investments. At the peak, between June and December of 2007, we were up quite a bit above a million dollars. We aren’t back to that, but we are up from December 2008. Our budget is about what we would expect for this time of year. The projections we’ve made for the conference are still appropriate. Dr. McPhail congratulated Mr. Nershi and Mrs. Lentz on their development of a new registration program for the conference.
Mr. Nershi noted that conference registrations are ahead of the pace from a year ago by about 100 people. We have already surpassed our minimum room obligation at the Atlanta Hilton hotel. We will be looking at an overflow hotel soon.
Dr. McPhail noted that at the last meeting, the board asked him to compare SIOP’s current investment company with other investment companies. SIOP has issued an RFP to four vendors and we expect to have the information back by the middle of February and have recommendations by April. There was discussion of how the potential vendors were chosen. Dr. McPhail explained that Mr. Nershi and Mrs. Lentz looked for companies near the administrative office as well as used the Board’s guidance about the types of firms they want to work with. Dr. McPhail noted that while SIOP’s investment performance trails the average, it is not a great deal behind the S&P 500. Dr. Banks requested Merrill Lynch be included in the companies sent RFPs. Dr. Latham asked about using TIAA- CREF because their management expense ratio is the lowest in the country. Dr. McPhail said he will ask Mrs. Linda Lentz Monday to send Merrill Lynch and TIAA-CREF an RFP, assuming TIAA-CREF has a local presence and is appropriate.
Dr. Reynolds said there was a typo on page 18, Licensing vs. Certification, 3rd paragraph from the bottom where the word “certification” should be substituted for “licensing”.
Dr. McPhail noted that members of the board had asked him previously if SIOP’s reserves were in the proper range. He looked for benchmarks from other organizations, but was not able to get much good information. Part of this is due to how organizations define reserves, part deals with how operating budgets work. He explained that he looked at the worst-case scenario: what if we don’t get any income from a conference? The total liability SIOP would face would be about a half million dollars. If we keep a reserve of one year operating budget that will increase over time, our target will be $1.4 million, which is substantially more than the worst-case scenario. We might want to consider whether to leave the goal of a floating one-year operating budget or cap that. We haven’t been adding to the reserve fund. The only reason it is growing is because of the interest.
Dr. Banks mentioned a few other typos in the minutes that she would bring to Mr. Nershi at a later date.
Dr. Latham moved to approve the consent agenda. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda accepted. Approved the following:
·         Emergency Action Subcommittee items:
o   Presidential travel fund usage approved
o   Conference registration program purchased
o   SHRM CE provider application funding approved
·         September Executive Board meeting minutes
·         Portfolio officer reports
ISO-ANSI TAG.The board began a conference call with Dr. Nancy Tippins regarding the International Standards Organization (ISO) and SIOP’s participation as a dues-paying member. The ISO wants to establish international standards for the creators and publishers of tests as well as credentialing test users. This has been assigned to a working group that is internationally represented and is developing a standard that will be presented for approval of the ISO. The American group, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), is coordinating a technical advisory group (TAG). Dr. Tippins is SIOP’s representative to this project.
President Kraiger provided a background on the TAG group. The motion to approve the initial travel expenditures for Dr. Tippins did not reflect the understanding that SIOP would be paying for the meetings as long as the group met, though there was an assumption that SIOP would pay as long as the group met. Since the group formed, there have been leadership issues with the group. Their final meeting was supposed to be in December, but there were issues that delayed the process. There will be at least one and possibly two more meetings that will extend another year if they can meet their goals. First, we need to commit to continuing with that group and therefore pay dues for another year. By saying we are still in group, the costs are $6,000 for dues plus the travel costs, as well as the possibility of it going another year. The cost of not continuing is that we would be abandoning input on something that could be beneficial to I-O practitioners that is not finished. There was general agreement that SIOP has come far with the process that it seems they should continue. The ballpark estimate is $8-10,000. Dr. McPhail said this isn’t in the current budget. We would have to take it out of reserves.
The board discussed with Dr. Tippins (via conference call) whether the group will take another year or not, considering the time it has taken so far and the setbacks. Dr. Tippins said she cannot make a guarantee about what the group will do. APA is also quite upset with the delay. We may want to partner with them to make our displeasure known. Dr. Tippins noted the benefit of participating is that these standards cover assessment. It deals with individual as well as group assessments. Many European countries could require certifications so that only people who are certified on ISO 900 PC 230 will be allowed to conduct assessments in their countries. That would bar Americans who want to perform assessments and are not certified by ISO standards.
Dr. Banks asked why SIOP is shouldering the cost. Dr. Tippins explained that all of the participating organizations share the burden. SIOP’s portion is $6,000. There was more discussion regarding who has a stake in the group and whether the costs of participating were balanced by the cost of not participating. At Dr. Colella’s request, Dr. Tippins explained the nature of the problems the group has had. Dr. McPhail explained that ISO standards can affect SIOP members in two ways. If the European Union writes rules around standards, we would be held to them by law. Also, other organizations might adopt the ISO standards and hold their vendors to them whether we are legally required to or not. President Kraiger and Dr. Tippins agreed we should make it clear this is all we are paying. The intent is to send it out this spring for comment.
Dr. Weiss moved that SIOP provide the funds necessary to continue our participation for one more year and fund Dr. Tippins’ travel for one more year. Dr. Latham seconded the motion. Dr. McPhail offered a friendly amendment to say the money would be taken from the reserves since there is no budget item for it. Dr. Reynolds seconded the friendly amendment. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Agreed to pay for one more year of dues for participation in the ISO 9000 ANSI TAG meeting and for travel costs for Dr. Nancy Tippins for one more year, the funding for which will be taken from the Society’s reserve fund.
The 50 Healthiest Places to Work Proposal. Dr. Banks presented the “Top 50 Healthiest Places to Work” proposal and explained that she is trying to get a sense from the Executive Board of whether or not they want to endorse the initiative. Endorsement means Dr. Banks can go forward and do the work. President Kraiger said he envisions appointing Dr. Banks to chair a task force that works with the blessing of the Executive Board to undertake the project. She would then come back to the board with updates and financial requests.
Dr. Banks .explained the proposal. There are somewhat similar initiatives already present in other organizations. Usually the efforts they track are fitness programs, eating healthy programs, etc., but all of these initiatives are things that happen as a benefit that employees might elect to do. They don’t go very far. There is a lot of space and a niche to take an integrative look at what makes a healthy workplace. SIOP can identify the new standard for what a healthy workplace is. We need to make the award market driven so people will want to compete. The model for this is “Great Places to Work” sponsored by Fortune magazine. If we create a competition that acknowledges organizations, it will spur other organizations to make changes. There are also other spinoffs. It will create a new line of work for consulting firms. The biggest spinoff is that people who experience a healthy workplace will adopt that as a way of life and bring it home.
Dr. Colella asked if SIOP would own the rights to the award and what SIOP’s role would be. Dr. Banks explained that SIOP would be the steward of the award. We will be running it, but we will invite others to be part of it. Dr. Weiss asked if SIOP would have to partner with a particular publication for this. Dr. Banks said yes, and we would have to choose the sponsor carefully. Dr. Latham asked if Dr. Banks has any reason to believe anyone would be interested in providing financial support. Dr. Banks said she has shared this proposal with a dozen people outside of SIOP and the answer back is that funding could be achieved “in a heartbeat.”
Dr. Highhouse asked how this relates to APA’s healthy organizations movement. Dr. Allen asked about the timing with the economy as it is. There is not a talent shortage right now. Also, many of the lists are usually big companies, so the scope might be too small. Dr. Banks explained that the APA Healthy Workplace Award included minimal involvement by SIOP and is narrowly focused on a psychologically healthy workplace. Our scope would be wider. There was discussion on whether APA would consider the award as competition. The board discussed the possibility of collaborating with APA. There was discussion of copyrights and whether or not APA would go to court to block the creation of SIOP’s award. Dr. Banks said the title is similar, but our focus is much wider. Dr. Weiss commented that this is a good idea, but asked if it is really “us.” We aren’t ergonomics or building materials professionals. Maybe we would need a partner who is closer to the core of what we do. President Kraiger said he believes SIOP’s mission statement includes having an effect on individual effectiveness and organizational health. There are enough things in this area related to what we do that I think we are qualified to be the stewards.
Dr. McPhail noted some problems with the Psychologically Healthy workplace awards. There were questions regarding objectivity. The other issue is one of liability. When you do this sort of thing, there are winners and losers. Dr. Banks said the ranking wouldn’t be determining if an organization is healthy or not healthy. We will be ranking organizations who have agreed to be judged. Many professionals from different related fields would be involved in creating the template the organizations would be judged against. Dr. McPhail mentioned the National Science Foundation could be a source of funding. Dr. Latham mentioned that he is on the board of SHRM and thinks SHRM would be happy to get involved. He would be happy to get key people in SHRM to speak with SIOP. Dr. Salas said he is on the board of the Human Factors Society and they would jump on this, too.
Dr. Banks said she would like to create a task force of individuals through the board’s recommendations and then they would start figuring out how to fund it. Dr. Kraiger said he will appoint the task force. He asked for a motion to appoint Dr. Cristina Banks as chair for an unfunded taskforce and support the proposal in its basic form as it is now. Dr. McPhail suggested encouraging the taskforce in the motion to get to a point where they can propose a budget item for the April board meeting so it can be incorporated as a line item in the budget. Dr. Banks said she wants to know that she is representing SIOP when she continues this work. Dr. Kraiger suggested the board make the motion to endorse the proposal and appoint Dr. Banks as the chair of the task force but require a budget line item request and ask for the board’s willingness to commit with different organizations separately.
Mr. Nershi asked how the list will be attributed. Will it be a list developed by SIOP? A list published by SIOP? Dr. Banks replied that we will want to think about it carefully and that we want SIOP to have top building. We should look at models of similar lists. Dr. Peterson asked how SIOP can prevent someone else we approach about partnering with us from stealing our idea. We need a stealthy partnership with nondisclosure agreements with clear criteria of who will be involved.
Dr. McPhail stated that unless the board is willing to completely fund the initial steps of the list, the board needs to create a mechanism for receiving funds from other people and organizations. Dr. Reynolds suggested SIOP do a feasibility study with an ad hoc committee that includes the research in phases 1 and 2 of the project to answer the questions we still have. He said he also wondered how the list fits with SIOP’s strategic priorities. Dr. Allen said she would like for more to be a part of the initiative than a list for SIOP’s visibility. Dr. Weiss said he thinks we are framing this wrongly if we focus on SIOP’s ownership, SIOP’s visibility, etc. We shouldn’t worry about how SIOP’s name will be on it. Dr. Banks answered that the purpose of the list is to create market-driven change. Dr. Allen expressed concern that lists like these can be driven by large companies. Dr. Banks said SIOP’s list won’t be like that. Small firms will be better equipped to get on the list because they have more flexibility.
Dr. Reynolds moved for the Executive Board to endorse the creation of an unfunded ad hoc task force headed by Dr. Cristina Banks to explore the feasibility of an initiation of the Top 50 Healthiest Places to Work. The motion was seconded by Dr. Latham. Motion passed unanimously
ACTION ITEM: Endorsed the creation of an unfunded ad hoc task force (headed by Cristina Banks) to explore the feasibility of an initiation of the Top 50 Healthiest Places to Work.
Ten minute break. 6-6:10 p.m.
Practitioner Mentoring Program. President Kraiger explained the mentoring proposal. There are three different types of mentoring: group mentoring, speed mentoring, and virtual mentoring. Dr. Colella said those working on the program should call should her or Tracy Vanneman at the SIOP office because they started the SIOP conference ambassador program and might be able to offer help.
There was discussion of the 10 years of experience requirement to be a mentor. Dr. Saari said that if there was trouble getting enough mentors with 10 years of experience, she felt five years is enough for people to have expertise. Dr. Banks said she thought the 10-year mark would create a sense of elite experience that would encourage people to sign up as mentors. Dr. Peterson added there is research that shows that at a certain point of mastery it actually becomes counterproductive to coach new people because your schema is so different. Dr. Kraiger said he doesn’t see this as policy. It’s a proposal to initiate these three forms of mentoring. If we approve it, we are letting them go forward and evaluate and tweak it themselves.
Dr. McPhail said the budgetary items need to come to the board in April to be approved. The cost would be about $4,000-5,000. While there was agreement that the funding would be worth it to satisfy a large constituency of SIOP, Dr. McPhail also noted that the funding is not currently in the budget. Mr. Nershi said the budget items may be able to be accomplished with volunteers instead of paying someone. The board decided to refer to Dr. Joan Brannick to determine if she has the money from the professional practice committee to go toward the project. The board decided to continue the discussion the following day.
President Kraiger adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. ET. President Kraiger called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. ET.
The Board went into executive session to discuss the recommendations of the Fellowship Committee.
Dues Increase. Dr. McPhail explained the alternatives available to the board to enact a dues increase. Under SIOP’s bylaws, the board can increase dues without a vote if it is an increase of less than 15%. Any dues increase of greater than 15% has to be voted on by the Society. In order to enact a dues increase of less than 15%, the board would need to announce by February 1 of the intention to increase. Then we have to allow members to comment until the board meets again in April. In the past, people have generally accepted the dues increases. 
With SIOP’s two-tiered dues system, there are two alternatives: 1. Increase member dues by $5 and retired and student by $2.5. That’s about 8.5%. The projections for changes in membership are relatively flat. We’d realize about $62,000 in new revenue. In one year that would be about $30,000, which would be about enough to cover the cost of IOP. If we choose the entire 15%, we would realize about $99,000 in new revenue. We had to have a reduction of 4% for committee budgets this year, so our actual costs are greater than that. We also have fixed costs that actually go up-health costs, pay, 401ks, etc.
Dr. McPhail’s recommendation is to propose a 15% dues increase now and going forward consider the possibility of a small, not 15% but a 5-10% increase each year until we reach a point where our dues structure reflects what we think it needs to. Our membership dues need to be much higher relative to the costs of what we are providing members and what other societies are providing. Dr. Weiss said SIOP seems to have a dues structure that is the legacy of being a division of APA, where the dues are very low to be in a particular division. We are now an individual organization and our dues need to reflect that. Dr. McPhail noted the two agenda initiatives that will add costs to SIOP’s budget. There are other things we would probably find useful to do with extra revenue. President Kraiger asked if it is possible to project a budget three years out and put a number on it. We could say, “here are the types of things we could do with a 15%, 20% increase, etc.” Dr. McPhail explained that the board first needs to decide if it wants a dues increase.
Dr. Weiss said he didn’t like the idea of an incremental increase because it looks like the board is trying to bypass the voting and really pass a 30% increase over several years. There was general agreement on this. Dr. McPhail said the board should be concerned with how a large increase will affect members, particularly students.
Dr. Latham moved to act to implement an increase in dues for SIOP members by 15% beginning the next dues year. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Voted to act to implement an increase in dues for SIOP members by 15% beginning the next dues year.
Dr. McPhail explained the dues increase procedure to announce the board’s intent to increase dues by February 1. Members need at least 60 days to comment. Then the Executive Board takes a vote at the next scheduled meeting. Do we want the student membership rates to increase proportionately? Dr. Salas asked how student dues correspond to the cost of IOP journal subscriptions. Mr. Nershi said students receive a full year subscription to the journal with their dues.
Dr. Latham motioned for the board act to implement an increase in student and retiree dues by 15% beginning the next dues year. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Voted to act to implement an increase in student and retiree dues by 15% beginning the next dues year.
Dr. McPhail discussed the possibility of further increases in the future and asked the board to think about it. President Kraiger suggested he discuss the issue further with Dr. Colella, Dr. Salas, and Dr. McPhail at a later date. Dr. McPhail explained that when the original dues policy was created, the reserves were greater than the operating budget. Since SIOP is no longer contributing to the reserves, this might not be true for a long time.
Mr. Nershi explained how the commentary process will work. We will put information up on the SIOP Exchange and the Web site and ask people to comment. President Kraiger said he wants to show members what they have accomplished as a board. He will present this at the conference, too. There are a lot of members that don’t see everything we do.
Publications Board. Dr. Highouse said they are working on training a TIP editor. They have a process in place. Dr. Wendy Becker will stay on until April. We put out an emergency call for nominations on the Web site. There is a small proportion of membership who has actually seen it. President Kraiger said we have a publications board that will make a recommendation to him. President Kraiger told the board they have until the next Monday morning to advance any other names.
Electronic Communications Wiki Proposal. Dr. Reynolds explained the committee’s main request is for input. No immediate budget request. We want to add functionality to the SIOP Web site that allows us to support a variety of features for user-generated content. The most obvious version of this is a wiki. This would provide the functionality that is increasingly called for by committees and various communities of interest. President Kraiger began this with his idea to create a set of wikis for practice and science. The wiki would allow practitioners to share materials. The mentoring proposal also describes some features that could be done on the Web/wiki tool. The committee has created a list of what is needed on the platform. There are three options. We could have a free service, a mid-range service, or a paid site like Blackboard. The ECC proposes that we pull an ad hoc committee together to work on this. The alternative is to fast-track toward one of the mid-tier options and allow the administrative office to develop and initiate this.
There was discussion of the costs of the platform. President Kraiger explained that his number one initiative over the past year was to launch this. The selling point is that this could be a strong benefit for virtually every member of SIOP. He said his vision has been to show how this helps each member do his/her job. He perceives it more as a benefit that has costs rather than a benefit that reduces costs for SIOP. The board discussed some of the alternative sites and platforms members use to communicate. President Kraiger explained that one of the challenges will be to get people invested in SIOP’s wikis. Dr. Weiss suggested that those who are most invested in certain topics could serve as moderators of the discussions. President Kraiger said Dr. Denise Rousseau proposed doing some type of web-based portal where there is a series of practice-related topics where we can accumulate knowledge on a specific topic. She could take the lead on the practice side for this. The goal has always been to launch the practice wiki first. President Kraiger explained that this will need to be monitored to keep it alive. For example, the SIOP Exchange is a nice looking product and has a great deal of functionality, but it hasn’t taken off. It’s not just launching a new product, it’s finding a way to get people to go to it and actually contribute. President Kraiger said the ECC should continue with the alternative plan, to allow the SIOP administrative office to take the lead. Rather than have a separate task force, let’s focus on the fact that we will need to find a new chair for the ECC.
I-O at work Web site. The I-O at work Web site was started by Alison Mallard who is the principal at HR Catalyst. She started this Web site with the goal of providing research summaries in a timely fashion that are accessible to anyone who goes to the site. Mallard has a team of graduate students that she pays to read an article, write a summary and then she reviews them and has a lawyer and MBA look at everything to make sure it is understandable. There are 150 articles on the site right now. The business model is that she sells sponsorships. Her company also provides literature search services. She approached us through Dr. Joan Brannick to partner with this in some form. We could either endorse the site, sponsor it, link off our home page to it, etc.
Dr. Banks said it seems like they would need a great deal of articles in the database in order for it to be useful to our members. The reviewer should be someone more experienced than a grad student. If we do have a relationship, we wouldn’t have any control over who would become sponsors on this site. We would then be a revenue generator for her, pushing people to the site. Dr. Reynolds said his impression is that there is value, but his concern is that historically SIOP actively avoids alliances with for-profit establishments owned by our members.
There was discussion regarding whether practitioners would want or need the resource. Dr. Saari mentioned that most practitioners don’t have access to scholarly articles, so it helps that they have a summary of it. There was discussion of possibilities for gaining access to scholarly articles for practitioners. President Kraiger said he has thought about how SIOP could get access for practitioners to those articles, but he is not sure that SIOP wants to be in that business.
President Kraiger asked what the academics thought of the I-O at Work Web site. Dr. Highhouse asked why SIOP doesn’t start a listserv where you can ask professors a question and get an answer back. There was discussion about what the board’s goal is for using this type of resource. President Kraiger said his initiative with the wikis has been built around developing a knowledge base so practitioners don’t have to buy information. President Kraiger summed up the discussion, saying he would like to move forward with a platform for wikis with guidance of the administrative office. He said the board will continue to work on getting a new chair for the Electronic Communications Committee, that they like Dr. Denise Rousseau’s idea for a knowledge base, and that the board doesn’t want to move forward with the I-O at Work partnership.
APS Affiliate Status. Dr.Salas said he would like a sense from the board about how to move forward in discussing our relationship with APS. Dr. Salas and President Kraiger had a meeting with APS Executive Director Dr. Allan Kraut in December. APS is very receptive to SIOP strengthening our affiliation. President Kraiger said the bylaws currently say that to join SIOP you have to be a member of APA or APS. The majority of our members who have an affiliation have it with APA. However, members may switch their affiliation to APS if there were benefits to them or to SIOP for doing so.  
At their December meeting, Dr. Salas and Dr. Alan Kraut in December discussed that I-Os would like more involvement in journals and other initiatives. They also discussed publicizing I-O psychology more to the APS membership. President Kraiger will write an article for the Observer that will be featured soon. President Kraiger said APS indicated they are willing to waive membership fees for one or two years for SIOP members who join. APS leaders can come to the April board meeting for more discussion. Advocacy for APA means lobbying to congress, particularly for medical practitioners. What we want is to influence decision making in the public domain, and that is what APS does.
President Kraiger and Mr. Nershi had met with Dr. Carol Goodheart of APA in October and reminded her of who we are and what we do. He said he came away from the meeting with no sense of connection. She didn’t seem to let us know what they could do for us, which we did get with APS.
There was further discussion of having Dr. Kraut address the SIOP Executive Board regarding working with APS. Dr. Outtz added that he would want something in writing. There was discussion of the nature of SIOP’s affiliations with APA and APS. The board discussed its options for strengthening SIOP’s affiliation with APS and how it would affect members as well as SIOP’s affiliation with APA.
Break for lunch. Board reconvened at 11:56 a.m.
APA Council Representative Report. Dr.Weiss said the council hasn’t met since the last Board meeting. The APA budget, which was in severe deficit last year, has apparently been turned around through major cuts. There has been a change of leadership and they have also put into place their strategic plan. One of the things he wants to put in front of this group is that it would be useful for the representatives and everyone else at SIOP who is involved in some APA activity to speak. We might want to think about having some sort of e-mail or wiki mechanism for us to know who is doing APA work and for us to touch base with them.
Dr. Salas said he doesn’t think we know what we want from APA, and therefore we cannot initiate anything. Dr. Weiss said he feels the representatives’ role oftentimes seems to be there to listen to see what is going on and then report back to see if there is anything we have to worry about. It doesn’t seem like it really matters whether we have two representatives or four representatives, because there are 200 people voting there. President Kraiger suggested that at least once a month, the board communicate with the APA representatives on what is going on with APA.
MEMBERSHIP (continued)
APS Affiliate Status. President Kraiger said he would like someone to collect a list of what the issues and concerns are, disseminate them by e-mail and hold a discussion. He also asked what the Board would like to do in April. Several Board members stated they would like to at least talked to Dr. Kraut and review the benefits of having more presence at APS. President Kraiger said we should have him come and speak at the April meeting. The Board will use the Executive Board Wiki to start pulling together a list of issues and concerns. He will send the e-mail exchanges that were part of that discussion to the Board. Dr. Truxillo will monitor the discussion after it is posted on the Wetpaint Wiki. Dr. Weiss also suggested discussing the alternative of allowing members to not be part of either APA or APS. Dr. Saari added that the turnover of student members who apply to be full members is very low. If the requirement to become members didn’t include the APS/APA membership, we could have many more people upgrade to full membership.
FELLOWS (continued)
SIOP Fellow Recommendations (continued). Dr. Latham moved to accept the recommendations in total of the Fellowship Committee. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. All members voted for the motion except Cristina Banks, who abstained from the vote. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the recommendations in total of the Fellowship Committee.
Practitioner Mentoring Program (continued).  There was a discussion of how much money would be available to fund the program. Dr. McPhail noted there are a number of costs in the proposal that are not estimated. The committee will need to think about what they would like to request for next year for their line item to cover what they are not asking for in the proposal, but the board can allocate the funds for what is asked for specifically in the proposal. Mr Nershi noted that most of the costs that have not been estimated would be free, such as booth and room space.
Dr. Tsacoumis moved and Dr. Latham seconded to accept the subcommittee mentoring proposal amended to reduce the total cost requested by $1,360 to a total of $1,540. Dr. McPhail offered a friendly amendment to tell the subcommittee to continue to do their research to find answers to the questions that relate to the liability to SIOP and other unanswered questions. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the subcommittee mentoring proposal amended to reduce the total cost requested by $1,360 to a total of $1,540. The subcommittee is also encouraged to continue to research the legal considerations that are presented in the proposal.
ADVOCACY (continued)
Proposed Formation of an External Relations Committee. Dr. Reynolds explained that the initial proposal was for SIOP to establish a new standing committee for External Relations. We need a committee that has a coordinating role across SIOP’s advocacy efforts. Part of the function of this new committee would be to understand and document the various initiatives we have going on in advocacy. The revised proposal would be to make it an ad hoc committee in the short term to get it up and running before we request a formal bylaws vote. The request of the board is to comment and give a nod to the establishment of an ad hoc committee.
President Kraiger said he would appoint the committee but wants to make sure the board thinks it’s a good idea first. From what he experienced in advocacy this year, he has learned two things: 1.) Advocacy needs more than the president doing it. 2.) Advocacy opportunities come up suddenly and often need a quicker response than we are able to provide. So we can either 1.) Try to anticipate what the questions are. 2.) Have something documented and have people in place we can turn to outside of SIOP’s president. Dr. McPhail noted that SIOP also needs to understand what our limits are as to advocacy without endangering our tax-exempt status. Mr. Nershi said we can advocate for the I-O profession, but we wouldn’t be able to lobby. Dr. Colella suggested putting out a call for committee members. President Kraiger said he will appoint a committee and chair and encourage people to volunteer for it. Dr. Reynolds recommended Dr. Deirdre Knapp for chair. He and President Kraiger discussed creating a chair term that would be different than the current term. No formal action was needed to create the ad hoc committee.
OTHER MATTERS (continued)
Foundation Finances. Dr. McPhail explained that the Foundation decided not to do the Big Ask solicitation this year. Instead, Dr. Hakel sent out personal letters. We received $17,000 in terms of traditional giving. We received $25,000 last year, but $12,000 of that was a single gift. It looks like the strategy of personal letters was successful, given the times. Dr. Weiss asked about the progress in defining the role we discussed between SIOP and the Foundation at the previous meeting. Dr. McPhail explained that there was a discussion with he, Dr. Hakel, and President Kraiger, but roles have not yet been more clearly defined. Dr. Salas asked if Dr. Hakel joining the Executive Board would create a conflict of interest since he is the President of the Foundation. Mr. Nershi noted we still have a separation of the Foundation and SIOP. President Kraiger said he would rather defer the discussion until they have talked further. Dr. McPhail said SIOP has a conflict of interest policy and this can be investigated if someone wants to raise the issue.
ADVOCACY (continued)
Alliance. President Kraiger said that Dr. Milt Hakel has worked to draft a charter for the Alliance that Kraiger, Dr. Salas, and Dr. Latham have read. At the Melbourne Congress in July there will be an interim council meeting where we will approve the charter, appoint an initial board of officers, and then at some point each group will appoint three council members. The three interim members are Drs. Kraiger, Latham and Salas. There was consensus among President Kraiger, Dr. Salas, and Dr. Latham that Dr. Hakel would be a great choice as the first president of the board. President Kraiger said that at the EAWOP Executive Board meeting last spring, he said that the Alliance is a great idea, but until it starts producing things the other organizations can’t do (by themselves), it is just an idea.
Dr. Truxillo spoke about the work on incubators. The first international incubators will be at the SIOP conference, but everyone wasn’t involved in this one. The first internationally created incubators will be at the Melbourne conference. Someone will be appointed from each organization to work on the topics. It will be a part of the congress from then on out.
CRSPPP Petition Update.  CRSPPP is a commission in APA that certifies specialty areas within psychology. Mr. Nershi stated that SIOP has submitted the petition for I-O to be included as a specialty area and this has been handled.
OTHER MATTERS (continued)
CCL Coaching Collaboration. Dr. Latham said the coaching LEC two years ago was a hit with practitioners. Mr, Nershi and Dr. Latham were inundated with requests for workshops for practitioners to increase their coaching skills. In September they met with the Center for Creative Leadership. They have sent an e-mail to begin speaking about revenue sharing between the two groups. Dr. Doug Riddle is working on this effort.
MEMBERSHIP (continued)
Ambassador Program. Dr. Colella said this is a program to welcome new attendees at the conference. She encouraged everyone to join it. About 35 people have signed up to be mentors and 50-60 people have signed up to be newcomers.
Conference Update. Mr. Nershi said the conference committee met the day before. Registration is ahead of the pace from last year by about 100 registrants. Rooms are filling up quickly at the hotel. Probably within the next week, the rooms will be gone. The Marriott is our overflow hotel. There are a lot of special activities this year that have to do with the 25th anniversary of the conference. There will be a signature cocktail and a history display for SIOP put together by Paul Levy. The new registration system includes a proof of your badge and you can print your own badge at the conference. Dr. Banks asked if there were accommodations for the speed mentoring. Mr. Nershi said there is space available, but we need a day and time.
President Kraiger said he has been thinking about his presidential address. He would like to highlight ways I-O psychology has had an impact on not only psychology and the workplace, but our lives and society in general. If anyone has any recommendations, that would be helpful. He said he wants to bring the speech to the community level and focus on community efforts, including the Make it Right project, Vicki Vandaveer and Tracey Rizzuto and their work with Louisiana, etc. Hewould love to get CNN there.
ADVOCACY (continued)
Proposed Formation of an External Relations Committee (continued). Dr. McPhail pointed out that ad hoc committees must be established via a motion. Dr. Reynolds moved to establish an ad hoc committee to deal with external relations. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Voted to establish an ad hoc committee to work on external relations.
Comments on APA Implementing Regulations Regarding Distance Education and Tele-Supervision. President Kraiger noted we need to be proactive in defining what needs to be included in the degree program.
Education and Training Survey Results on Business and Consulting Skills in I-O Graduate Education. President Kraiger noted that the piece in the briefing book on this was informational only.
VISIBILITY (continued)
Name Change Bylaws Amendment Vote and Next Steps. President Kraiger stated the vote did not pass, but Visibility Committee is ready to continue branding efforts.
ADVOCACY (continued)
FABBS Federation Report. President Kraiger explained that The Federation represents SIOP to agencies that have decision making roles in government. Mr. Nershi stated SIOP pays about $16,000 for membership in the Federation. The Board discussed the benefits of being part of the Foundation, such as our being informed of the Department of Defense’s reconsideration of the pay for performance system so that we could respond. President Kraiger explained some of the other timely issues the Federation could help SIOP get involved in, such as healthcare and the Board discussed other possible issues, such as unemployment and team building.
When Dr. Colella expressed concern that the Federation is not fully aware of what SIOP members do, there was discussion of whether the Federations Executive Director, Paula Skedsvold, could come speak to the board. Dr. Salas said she should be connected with Dr. Deirdre Knapp. The Federation facilitates large gatherings with congressional staffers where they discuss issues that are hot at the moment.
Meeting adjourned by President Kraiger at 12:58 p.m. EST.