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

Minutes of the Winter 2012 Executive Board

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Winter Executive Board Meeting
January 20-21, 2012
Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego

Members Present:
Joan Brannick, , Adrienne Colella, , Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Mort McPhail, Julie Olson-Buchanan, David Peterson, Doug Reynolds, Steve Rogelberg, Eduardo Salas, John Scott, Paul Thayer, Lori Foster Thompson and Mike Zickar. Fellow Chair Wally Borman and David Nershi were also present.
Members Absent: Debra Major and Lise Saari.

CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
FINANCIAL REPORT
CONSENT AGENDA
FELLOWS
    SIOP Fellowship Committee Recommendations
GOVERNANCE
    Revised Elections Committee Procedures
    Sunset Reports
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS
    Update on San Diego Conference
    Conference Program Advance Taskforce Appointment
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
    Summary of ASPPB Meeting and Next Steps
OTHER MATTERS
    Diversity task Force
    Emerald Award
    Strategic Planning
    Summary of ASPPB Meeting and Next Steps
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
    Science Advocacy Task Force Follow-Up
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS
    Online Member Community
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
    I-O Psychologist Job Analysis/Career Study
VISIBILITY
    Update on Branding Project and RFP
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
    SIOP UN Team Charter
    Alliance Update
    Funding Requirements
    UN Team charter budget
DUES INCREASE
ELECTIONS DISCUSSION
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
    Status of LEC Meeting
    Research Accessibility for Practitioners Update
    CRSPPP Revised Petition Update
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
    APA Council Rep Report
    Provide Direction to ERC Regarding Advocacy Priorities
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
    Policy on Methods to Electronically Disseminate our Publications
OTHER MATTERS
    Jeanerette Award
    SIOP Foundation Proposal for SIOP Scholars
    Returning Veterans Program

CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS

President Colella called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm. She welcomed John Scott to his first board meeting.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Dr. McPhail explained the financial report. We received the end of the year statement.  We have about $1.413 million in reserves.  As of Wednesday, our market portfolio is worth $1.441 million, an improvement over last year. We are holding some cash in our reserves to give us quick access to it if we need it.  In September we changed our reserve policy. The year before, we changed the financial principles as well as the reserve policy. He handed out the most current documents. The good news is that we have some reserves now in excess of our new goals. We have can use these to fund initiatives if we choose to do so.  These are just for planning purposes and not the final numbers for our fiscal year.

Dr. McPhail said he wanted to discuss the budgeting process. We have lacked in the way of budget discipline. People bring ideas to us in the middle of the budget year, and we don’t have funding for it in the middle of the budget year, especially if it’s ongoing. What appears to people that is happening is that we are slow at making decisions when that is not the case.  McPhail said he would like to emphasize to the portfolio officers to explain to their committee chairs that they need to plan ahead to get their initiative into our financial thinking so they can get into the budget.  The board can choose to run a deficit or fund things out of reserves or change the revenue stream.  All of those are options available to when they are looking at the budget at the beginning of the year. Otherwise, we can have a great idea but not be able to do anything with it. This is something we need to consider moving forward.

Dr. Peterson asked what is in the discretionarily budget for the president. Dr. McPhail explained that there are things the president needs to travel to throughout the year that we need to fund out of the president’s budget. It would be more prudent to make sure committee chairs are putting in proper amounts in their budget requests. If you push the discretionary funds too far you get an inflated budget. President Colella asked when the committees turn in budgets. Last year it was by mid-June, Dr. McPhail said. We have to wait until after the conference. Many committees could address their budgets while they are at the conference. I would like to compress the time frame for people to get those things in so it is consistent with our fiscal year.  President Colella stressed that portfolio chairs need to explain that the committees need to look at their budgets and be sure to budget for these things. Dr. McPhail added that we had training at the conference. We want people to explain the process to their committees.
Mr. Nershi explained that one problem is the committees do not become active until the fall and so they don’t know what projects they want to budget for until after they are due. Dr. McPhail explained that those fall projects should then be planned for the next budget year.  Mr. Hakel said the turnover of committee chairs makes it difficult to plan. Maybe we should start the budgeting now well ahead of the conference. The new chair often drops the projects of the old chair in the transition. Dr. McPhail said he agrees we should start it sooner. Portfolio officers should talk to the committee chairs now about this. Maybe committee chairs don’t understand what they are supposed to do in terms of the budget.

Dr. Rogelberg said flexibility is important. The chairs should be happy to be chairs and should be free to be spontaneous and innovative. This is obviously messy compared to corporate standards, but if we can go with it, let’s go with it. Dr. McPhail noted that two years ago we had a problem when we had to ask committees to cut their budgets by 4%. As our budget has gotten bigger the chance of something going wrong is bigger. So much of our funding comes out of the conference that we have to be careful with our budget.  Dr. Reynolds said it might be a matter of having discipline for how to bring up out-of-cycle costs or requests. Dr. McPhail said it would be imprudent to fund ongoing expenses from reserves. We can take one-time costs from reserves, but we can also set up a payment aspect, like we did with SIOP Research Access (SRA). My preferred method would be to use the budget, second preferred method would be to match the cost with a revenue stream. We would then need to decide who will be benefiting from the program or cost so they can pay for it. As we go forward that may be a less useful standard and we may need to spread costs across the membership.

CONSENT AGENDA

Dr. Hakel moved to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:

  • Report on Emergency Action Items
    • Advance Funds for LEC Speaker, Conference Sites for 2017-2019 Approved
  • Approval of September Meeting Minutes
  • Portfolio Officer Reports (written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters)
    • External Relations Officer: Lori Foster Thompson
    • Communications Officer: Mike Zickar
    • Conferences and Programs Officer: Julie Olson-Buchanan
    • Instructional and Educational Officer: Milk Hakel
    • Membership Services Officer: Lise Saari
    • Professional Practice Officer: Joan Brannick
    • Publications Officer: Scott Highhouse
    • Research and Science Officer: Steven Rogelberg

FELLOWS

SIOP Fellowship Committee Recommendations. Board went into executive session at 4:35 p.m. and came out of executive session at 4:53. Dr. McPhail moved to adopt the recommendations of the Fellowship Committee. Dr. OIson-Buchanan seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board voted to accept the recommendation of the fellowship committee.

GOVERNANCE

Revised Elections Committee Procedures. Dr. Reynolds explained that at the fall 2010 board meeting, Dr. Salas raised a question about how the committee decides who gets on the ballot. He was asking for more guidance from the board. Specifically, he wanted to know who gets on the ballot based on the number of recommendations. He requested more structure. The board approved his request, but since we were in the middle of the election cycle, it was not to be made into a rule until 2011. This year we publicized the new rule that the number of nominations drove who gets on the ballot. We had a more than 100% increase in presidential nominations this year.  Dr. Reynolds talked with the elections committee (President Colella and Past President Salas) and they thought they should expand the number of nominees on the ballot to recognize the influx of nominations. So we ultimately decided to take as many nominees  as we could. After the elections, several people requested the results. The precedent is that information is generally not shared. We only share the winner. We stuck with that rule this year. The challenge is often as much getting people to agree to be on the ballot as getting people to vote.  Posting the results after the fact would be unfair to those who were reluctant in the first place.  Dr. Reynolds decided not to release the results, primarily because we do not post them publicly. The people who ran were not told that would happen. If we aren’t going to release them publically we should not release them to any one person. Dr. Reynolds and the committee discussed this extensively and also looked carefully at the committee’s policies and practices.  The committee drafted several changes for the future.  Dr. Reynolds reviewed the major changes proposed.

The proposed changes would allow nominations throughout the nomination period. Often people submit nominations but then find out that someone else they were interested in nominating was nominated and they want to add names to their list. There was more discussion of the proposed elections changes. We are also specifying the number of slots for each role on the ballot. We also recommend the bios be available on a member page instead of just the voting site. With the extension of the names on the ballot, we want to use the single transferrable vote/ballot, which is what APA uses.  The process involves ranking the candidates. We are proposing that these procedures would be used with five candidates in next year’s election. Dr. Reynolds said there is a perception of bias in the process.  If you expand the ballot and use a ranking system, then the winner will have to be supported by a majority of the voters.  It has the advantage of a clear majority winner.  We would report the results for each round. So if someone gets the majority the first round they win.

President Colella explained that in the bylaws it says the committee has the discretion to choose who goes on the ballot and this would take that away, so it might require a bylaws change. Dr. Hakel said the Foundation met a few days ago and the view in general is that discretion ought to be preserved for the Elections Committee. There was discussion of the purpose of the discretion clause and the perceived bias it allows. Dr. Zickar said more transparency would help dispel conspiracy theories. Dr. Hakel said the manipulation is as likely to occur at the nomination stage as anywhere else. Dr.  McPhail added that as long as we set a cut off number for candidates, there is going to be manipulation. Mr. Nershi noted that if we had no limit, that would put us at odds with APA’s divisional officer election requirements. There was more discussion of potential “gaming” of the election system and how to best avoid it while maintaining an open election process. There was extensive discussion of why SIOP allows for multiple nominations for officers. Dr. McPhail said that if we are going to make any changes we need to tell people in advance.

There was a great deal of discussion over the specifics of how many nominations a potential candidates should get, whether there should be a threshold to get on the ballot, and how many nominations a candidate should have that they should be added even if they are not in the top group of candidates.  We could word this so we are citing the number of nominations as the primary driver, but so the Election Committee maintains the discretion. Mr. Nershi explained that the discretion in the past many times came down to someone not wanting to run and the rest of the nominees being tied with one nomination so the committee chose amongst them.   Dr. Reynolds added that we have been wrestling with this since September (18 months ago, when we made the initial motion). Our proposal here was to recommend a process for one year and our intent was to keep it within the bylaws. If we do things outside the bylaws, that does slow things down.  Dr. Hakel also suggested for the Elections Committee, as they contact people to see if they would be willing to serve, the committee should not disclose who else is running. The bottom line is that there is no perfect system. Dr. Rogelberg noted that if we have more people voting it would help reduce the likelihood of gaming, though Dr. McPhail added that this might just put the stress on gaming the nominations. The board agreed to postpone the discussion until tomorrow.

Sunset Reports. Mr. Nershi stated we will have two reports from Dr. Olson-Buchanan as well as the Visibility Committee report that will circulate next month. Most are no question.  He encourages everyone to read them. Dr. Thayer motioned to accept the sunset reports for Awards, Electronic Communications Committee, Fellowship Committee, TIP and Organizational Frontiers book series and the recommendations for these groups to continue. Dr.  Zickar seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the sunset reports.

MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS

Update on San Diego Conference. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said the committee met today. This is a great hotel and promises to be one of our most memorable conferences. EEOC head will speak at the theme track session. Some issues we will focus on next year: not enough reviewers. We are trying to find a way to get enough feedback with reviewing without putting so much work on reviewers. The possibility of mock interviews at placement was also brought up. Everything’s on track and it looks terrific. There are numerous reports about this in the briefing book. Mr. Nershi said we are looking very good. We won’t be at the numbers we had in Chicago, but we have good numbers. We are also encouraging people to buy booths earlier for partnerships, so we are getting numbers earlier. Cost will be a little lower this year. The food will be costly, but we don’t have a lot of the union regulations that we had last year that resulted in extra costs, especially AV.  So our costs should be a bit lower.

Conference Program Advance Taskforce Appointment. President Colella explained that we want to be able to take a look at the conference ahead of time. There was some concern about 2014 in Hawaii, and also just SIOP is growing. We are having more problems fitting all of the programming in and the extra types of programs, such as I would like to see more business-oriented or professional development type sessions.  Dr. Olson-Buchanan said the advance document called for a review after five years, and it has been five years. It is good we are taking a look at it because new issues have come up in the meantime. Dr. Rogelberg said he would like to suggest that the committee to revisit the issue of the number of concurrent sessions. It seems like they are back up. Could they take another look? Dr. Olson-Buchanan said we were really high in concurrent sessions and then reduced them but, they are back up again.

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

Summary of ASPPB Meeting and Next Steps.  Dr. Reynolds attended the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB)  conference in October. This is an association of state psychology licensure boards. It is a small group, but a well-attended meeting. They are the representatives and guardians of psychology licensure. It’s important that we stay in tune with the things that are happening there. This should not demand huge amounts of our time, but it’s worth having on our radar. Somewhere along the way the discussion turned to “where is I-O in terms of their views on licensure?” Dr. Reynolds’ response was that this question is not the critical issue. There are a range of opinions within our membership. A fair number of our members are licensed or need to be licensed. We think it’s in our interest to reduce barriers for those who desire licensure where those barriers do not apply to our field. We also want to serve as a resource for the state boards in terms of licensing I-O. The ASPPB’s executive director said that he sees state boards making decisions that may not favor I-O psychology not because they are not in favor of our field but because they are not aware of the specifics of our field. Dr. Reynolds put together a report from the board discussion on things we need to pay attention to, such as definitions of certain activities, etc. Our State Affairs Committee is already looking into these.

President Colella asked if we need more representation. Dr. McPhail explained that their membership is the state boards, so when we are there we are there by invitation as observers. We don’t get to vote. They are hugely dominated by clinicians. President Colella asked if we should get another person in there as an observer. Dr. Reynolds said he thinks they would be open to it. One recommendation is to make sure the president-elect is there next year. Dr. Brannick noted they may want to know why we want more people there. Do we want more people to attend the meetings or more people to be involved on task forces, etc.? There was discussion of whether or not SIOP would benefit from having more people involved. Dr. Peterson said he thinks we would benefit from having a stronger point of view. A more thoughtful way of engaging with them might be a good starting point. Dr. Hakel added that they have their own view of what constitutes recommendations for state boards. We need someone to monitor that. Dr. Brannick said some divisions just look to ASPPB for guidance. When we think about our agenda for ASPPB, folded into that needs to be our agenda for other states. We don’t have to be everywhere. We can look at our membership and where our largest concentrations are. Dr. McPhail said we don’t have to deal directly with the state boards. The state psychological associations are easier entries and have good relationships with the boards. Critical times are when states are going through sunsetting of their laws, that’s when bad things happen to us.

President Colella suggested that State Affairs Committee (and Dr. Brannick) be charged with coming up with some sort of influence plan.  Dr. Reynolds said he is also happy to continue to track it. This leads us to the recommendations of next steps. He asked what the State Affairs Committee would need to be more effective. They said they would like to receive some direction from the board on what to pay attention to. There are eight items of recommendation for the committee to pursue. We don’t have to approve these, but if they are directionally correct, we can send this to them. It would bring some energy to the committee. There was discussion of the items as well as potential accreditation. Dr. Thayer noted that an increasing number of people are graduating from business schools and OB programs. We need to start thinking about that so there is no divide between people in psychology programs and those in other programs. Dr. Brannick added that the member survey and specifically the percentage of our members who want to call themselves psychologists relate to this discussion.

Saturday, January 21, 2012. Colella called the meeting to order at 7:52 a.m.

OTHER MATTERS

Diversity task Force. President Colella explained that she has asked Kizzy Parks, who is the chair of CEMA, to start a diversity task force.  Minorities are well-represented at student levels but not at membership. I have tasked them with finding out why that is. You see those gaps at the members and associate level. 

Emerald Award. Diana Stone, who has a journal through Emerald sent us an email. Emerald wants to sponsor some sort of award and put their name on something. She said that when Gary Latham was president we couldn’t do it. Mr. Nershi explained that we didn’t want to commercialize the awards. Doug Pugh is looking at what Academy Is doing with the Africa program and finding ways to get people to come to the conference. Would it be okay to use Emerald to give a travel scholarship to provide money to send someone from an underrepresented country? There was agreement. President Colella said she will tell Diana we don’t want to commercialize the awards but that if Emerald would be willing to do a travel scholarship from an underrepresented country, we could do that.  Mr. Nershi said you probably need at least $5,000 for it to be worthwhile. Dr. Foster Thompson said the Academy has $4,000. We don’t need a motion for this.

Strategic Planning. In September we started talking and there are a lot of things we want to do. We need to do some strategic planning. In December, Drs. Salas, Reynolds, McPhail, Knapp, and Mr. Nershi met to discuss the planning process for projects. We used to have strategic planning committee, which now is the Emergency Action Committee. We talked about getting a taskforce that sits outside the board to advise the board. We would want them to go over our objectives that fall under our four goals. Some are relevant, some aren’t. Another function of the task force would be to delve deeply into a lot of issues. We hope they would meet once a month by phone. The board would assign them what to work on. This is not comprised of board members but by people who have experience as an elected member on the board or people who have served on committees. We want diversity in terms of work setting and age.  We are thinking we would have six people, with one rotating off every year, so six-year terms. The president would appoint the new person to be on it every year. There was discussion of the benefits of having non-board members. Dr. McPhail said they didn’t want board members on it because it seems like the task force will be a large time commitment. Mr. Nershi added that we also wanted to gain a larger perspective. The board only meets three times a year and we don’t have time to delve deeply into these projects. This body would come to us with more precise recommendations.  President Colella said they are asking that the board approve this task force and take a few years to see how the structure works and then look into whether or not this can be a committee. We would need a bylaws change for this. There was discussion about the time commitment of six years. These people are committed to the organization. The committee can also think of issues on their own and bring it to the board. Dr. Salas noted that in the beginning we will have a lot to give them. I will guess that after a few meetings the group would have a lot to think about. The idea is for the board to be more dynamic and for us to make decisions more quickly and make better decisions. Mr. Nershi said this group might not actually work the issues  themselves in all cases. They could recommend to the board that a task force be formed. Dr. Zickar moved that the board form the Strategic Planning & Policy Taskforce to operate for two years, after which the board will decide whether or not to make it a committee. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board formed a strategic planning task force to operate for two years, after which the board will decide whether or not to make it a committee.

There was discussion of the budget implications. Dr. McPhail said the recommendation was for President Colella to increase the amount in the president’s travel budget so we can work to put this into the budgeting process. President Colella said she estimated the cost to be around $10,000, $5,000 per meeting. President Colella said she is going to ask Jeff McHenry to be on this task force. He was the president that kicked this all off to begin with.

Summary of ASPPB Meeting and Next Steps.  (cont.) Dr. Reynolds moved to approve the recommended actions as guidance to the State Affairs Committee as they plan their goals for the coming year. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved eight items of recommendation for activity that the State Affairs Committee should pursue.

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)

Science Advocacy Task Force Follow-Up. Dr. Rogelberg summarized the status of the proposed I-O advocacy position. Today is not about discussing the position but instead deciding where we are going next. President Colella suggested this task go to the newly formed strategic planning task force. Dr. Rogelberg proposed two motions. First, he wants approval of the advocacy position. Second, he wants to charge the strategic planning task force with identifying viable funding options for the advocacy position over the next three months and come back to the board in April. If an adequate and appropriate funding model can be identified, this position is approved. Dr. Rogelberg noted that although the board could simply vote on the suggestion in April, he wanted to pass a motion now to keep it moving forward. President Colella noted that this is a big financial commitment of about $140,000 total. This will require a new, ongoing stream of income. Dr. Zickar asked who will judge if the funding is adequate. It seems radical for us to approve something before we know what we are approving. The board would decide. There was discussion of how this position would be described to members and who should be responsible for paying for it. There was agreement that the task force will need to conclude who benefits from the position in order to describe funding options. Dr. Zickar moved to approve the advocacy position contingent on identifying sustainable funding sources. Dr. Olson-Buchanan seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the advocacy position contingent on identifying sustainable funding sources.

Dr. Zickar made a motion to charge the strategic planning committee with identifying sustainable funding options over the next three months to bring back to the board for a vote.  Dr. Olson Buchanan seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board charged the strategic planning committee with identifying sustainable funding options over the next three months to bring back to the board for a vote.

MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS (cont.)

Online Member Community. Mr. Nershi presented the proposal and screenshots for the online member community. This all came out of the sunsetting of the Consultant Locater. It was not well-used or functional. The decision was made to sunset this and look for a new option. In discussion with the Electronic Communications Committee, it was determined that we wanted to find a robust profile driven program similar to LinkedIn where people could check out consultants, etc. As we looked into that option we found the best way to do that was through online member communities designed for organizations. We had demos from three different companies and selected one to delve deeper into. Basically this is a way you take collaboration and communication in SIOP to a whole new level. I think this could be the most significant member benefit ever for members. It has recruitment, engagement and collaboration implications. It would solve the consultant locator problem as well as give us new options for communicating. You would have a profile similar to LinkedIn with information about yourself, your services, your social media profiles, etc. Members could enhance their profile. This would be accessed through our website. You login onto SIOP.org and you can go to the community.  Committees could have their own pages, blogs, wikis, resource libraries, etc. The EB could have their own discussion groups and place for documents. We would have a homepage where we could put social media feeds, news, etc. Members could also subscribe to committee blogs, etc. to get information via email. You can select what you want to be seeing. Groups could also self-form. This could be great for international groups. We can also restrict the options for people.  We could get rid of our current wiki and move it to the new online platform (Go Lightly). We would probably stay with the blog platform we have now, but would probably eventually move it over. Any member could also have their own blog. With approval, we could have this going by the annual conference.

The initial charge would be $20,000 and $9,000 annually after that. The Consultant Locator would be free. There was discussion of who would use this. Dr. Rogelberg suggested that if SIOP decides to raise dues, this could be packaged with the dues increase. Dr. McPhail explained that we can easily pay the onetime $20,000 cost, but the $9,000 ongoing will need to be budgeted long term. $9,000 is a trivial dues increase. It should be packaged with a larger one. Dr. Zickar asked how this would fit in with our social media. Mr. Nershi said there will be social media feeds on the community homepage. The idea is that it is all in one place. Dr. Hakel said this would also make it easier for the EB to meet instead of going to another website. Mr. Nershi added that we have been having a lot of requests lately from committees that want their own webpages and wikis. This would make it a lot easier. Dr. Reynolds said he appreciates the due diligence Mr. Nershi has made. The problem is social media use is very diffuse among members; this would centralize it. Mr. Nershi explained that we have included a support plan in the pricing. That is probably needed for the first-year only. We could probably get rid of that after the first year.  There was discussion about paying for this community with a member dues increase in light of the other projects SIOP has in the pipeline. Dr. Thayer suggested paying for this out of reserves for this year. President Colella said she would like a motion to adopt and then go back to talking about the dues increase later in the meeting. There was more discussion of the benefits of the member community. Dr.  Scott motioned to move forward with the Go Lightly proposal. Dr. McPhail offered a friendly amendment to fund this proposal for the first year from reserves, recognizing we will not have any further funding in the reserves to spend on other proposals at this meeting. Dr. Scott accepted the friendly amendment. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion.  Dr. Brannick suggested the committee gather more data about usage over this year. Mr. Nershi said we have metrics resources on the platform in addition to Google Analytics. Dr. Thayer noted we will need to promote it extensively at the annual conference.  Dr. Hakel suggested using this for a community of interest discussion after the conference. Dr.  Reynolds requested the board return to a discussion of how SIOP allocates funds for initiatives in the context of a dues increase.  Dr. McPhail recommended the board postpone a vote on the motion until they are able to see what other projects have been proposed before they allocate funding. We have approximately $57,000 in our reserves.



SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)

I-O Psychologist Job Analysis/Career Study. Dr. Brannick said this deals with a discussion around how many of our member choose to do things that relate to the practice of psychology under the licensure laws. There are benefits beyond licensure for this kind of work to be done. She asked the professional practice committee to continue working on this. This involves all members.  Is there interest in pursuing something like this in the foreseeable future?  President Colella asked how much it would cost. Couldn’t we have a committee run the survey? Dr.  Brannick said the option has been discussed.  Dr. Peterson asked if there is a way to put this on the website so we can collect it in an ongoing way. There was discussion of someone within SIOP administering the survey. Dr. Reynolds noted we are already contracted with Questar for such services. Mr. Nershi added that Sirota will be the new survey provider. I don’t know if this will be in the domain of what is expected within that agreement.  Dr. Brannick said that if this survey comes out of Professional Practice Committee, she would not want it to be perceived as just being about practitioners. If I had to pick one place where this would be seen as impartial, I see it fitting under Education and Training. Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested a task force.  It could be a task force between Professional Practice and Education and Training committees. It would be a job analysis task force. Dr. Reynolds explained that this started as a job analysis of practice. How beneficial is it to have a job analysis of academic roles?  There was further discussion of the purpose of the survey, considering the fact that many of SIOP’s members work in academia while also consulting. Dr. Brannick summarized that she will go back to the Professional Practice Committee and for the April meeting come back with a more specific plan. Dr. Reynolds added that there is support for approval of a study that emphasizes internal resourcing and we would ask the committee to come back with a specific plan for how they would do that.  Dr. McPhail noted he likes the idea of the task force being led by the committee but drawing from other committees as well. President Colella said Rich Cober and Mike Trusty will have ownership of this. Dr. Hakel suggested speaking with Scott Tonidandel from the Education and Training Committee. Dr. McPhail motioned to create a task force to carry on the work of the Professional Practice Committee’s I-O psychologist job analysis/career study. This task force would come back in April with a budget and resources.  Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board created a task force to carry on the work of the Professional Practice Committee’s I-O psychologist job analysis/career study. This task force would come back in April with a budget and resources. 

VISIBILITY

Update on Branding Project and RFP. Dr. Foster Thompson explained the status of this project. The topic of branding has come to the board several times before and the board has been very helpful by providing guidance to the Visibility Committee. The message I think the board has given is yes, but not too fast, we want to see this happen in small pieces with tangible, useful deliverables—not just one gigantic price for one large project.  Several different vendors responded to the RFI. The board said to go ahead with the RFP and we sent those. The branding subcommittee evaluated the RFPs. We narrowed it down to two finalists Phire and Digital Culture Consulting (DCC). We recommend DCC. DCC is a company run by Andrea Goldberg, who is a SIOP member. She is very savvy in the arena of social media and technology. She has put together a team of 3 different people with differing expertise.  In DCC, we felt they had superior research methodology. They are I-Os. They do not emphasize the implementation. They are not sure that rebranding is necessary. They want to find out what the real problem is. President Colella noted that the DCC proposal is very heavy on internal data instead of external data. Dr. Highhouse noted that the committee talked to them and they said they could add more external emphasis. Mr. Nershi said DCC has a lot to offer but the price tag was turning us off. Dr. Highhouse emphasized that this is about growth—attracting new members, keeping existing members. We need clear goals.  Dr. McPhail added that we need to decide are we seeking to brand SIOP to members and potential members or are we seeking to brand I-O as a science to the outside world. DCC focuses on branding SIOP to membership whereas Phire is much more focused on the outside and who we are as psychologists to the outside world. There is a real difference in focus on the two proposals. We need to be clear as to what t is we are trying to brand and for which audience.  Are we branding the science or the society? President Colella noted that when we set this up we were very careful to specify our audience and it was business and the general public. Phire was better at that. Dr. Highhouse added that we do need to know who we are to members and in order to present that to the outside world. There was further discussion of this issue.

There was discussion of breaking the project into actionable steps that can be paid for individually, such as first focusing on the development of a communication marketing strategy. DCC proposes a smaller approach with some data collection. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that the subcommittee feels the DCC proposal is a better fit for SIOP.  If we move forward with DCC proposal, we need to define the initial task. We propose that we work to refine what they are proposing under phase one and then develop as, Goldberg describes, a communication strategy to help inform where we go after that. That is what we would contract for this fiscal year. Mr. Nershi said Phase One would cost $20,000, which includes a written plan.  Goldberg also mentioned that rebranding doesn’t necessarily involve a logo or other transformation.  She is a member and she knows us well. There was discussion of whether or not her member status would help the project. Dr. McPhail asked if the $20,000 cost would then lead to negotiation of subsequent work. There would be other steps. There was more discussion of whether or not the branding problem exists and whether DCC could help us with it. There was discussion of tangible examples of organizations that have undergone similar branding efforts.  Dr. Reynolds made a motion to endorse the direction of the Branding Subcommittee to begin negotiating on their top choice vendor, Digital Culture Consulting, to define an initial step for this fiscal year. Depending on successful negotiation, the group can get approval of the Emergency Action Committee to approve the initial phase and communication strategy not to exceed a cost $20,000. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion.  The board agreed to postpone a vote until all other proposals affiliated with funding were heard.

ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

SIOP UN Team Charter. Dr. Scott explained that they are asking for approval of the charter itself, a committee, and a start-up budget. Having NGO status is a tremendous windfall for SIOP. We are now able to directly contribute to the goals of the UN. We are able drive societal change. Through this and the Alliance, we engender global visibility for SIOP. It is a big undertaking, and I am going to need some help. I put this charter together to ensure alignment with our goals as well as the global vision of the UN.  Currently our activities are under the International Affairs Committee. Their portfolio officer, Dr. Truxillo, said he thinks the committee should report directly to the board. We are able to have 5 reps at the UN in New York, 5 in Geneva, and 5 in Vienna. The president of SIOP and the Executive Director also gets a grounds pass. We can also have student interns. There is a lot of interest in this. There are a lot of activities we can get involved in. I have put together a brief draft agenda for how we can get involved. I think we can solicit volunteers from all of SIOP to get involved in this project. For selecting our reps, there has to be some passion for humanitarian work, the ability to commit to monthly meetings at the UN, probably in New York.  It would be best to get local people. We will probably pay for their travel. He discussed desired personal characteristics of the reps. The UN requires initiative. The UN agencies are used to I-Os being in there. I envision a time when NGOs come to SIOP to help them with these things. This year they will have a conference in New York.  The topic is very much related to I-O psychology. We will set up ground rules for how these people will represent SIOP at the UN. Dr. Scott discussed the budget. This would include CONGO (Committee on NGOs) membership, attending meetings, etc. We will need $5,000 this first year to get it started and get people on board and then adjust and look at it at the end of the year. This would eventually be a line item in the budget but out of reserves for the first year. Dr. Reynolds said some portion could probably come out of operating funds. Dr. McPhail recommended using the reserves this year. We need to separate what will come out of reserves and what will come out of the budget. President Colella said this seems like something the Foundation might have interest in supporting. Dr. Hakel said they have not discussed it, but there may be donors who want to discuss developing a revenue stream to support this. We have talked about getting funds to support programs. Dr. Reynolds suggested SIOP offer branding opportunities to anyone who wanted to support UN representatives. We could offer that to companies in our membership.  Dr. Scott said he will not get to full capacity the first year, but we can anticipate that in subsequent years we would ask for additional funds beyond $5000. He would probably not need the full $5,000. In terms of the committee, Mr. Nershi noted that we do not currently have any that report directly to the board. Dr. McPhail added that a standing committee would require a bylaws change. There was further discussion of keeping this under the International Affairs Committee or forming a new committee with a bylaws change. Mr. Nershi said it can be a task force under Lori Foster Thompson’s portfolio for now. For the representatives, Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested providing a travel stipend. This would not cover the entire cost for those who are not local, but Dr. McPhail added that maybe someone who has passion for this and is not local would still be willing to go. Dr. Scott he would like the criteria for the selection of representatives to the United Nations to be approved so he can begin the selection process. He said he would also add something to the process regarding regular attendance at meetings. Dr. McPhail motioned for the adoption of the SIOP UN Team charter. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Separately, Dr. McPhail motioned to approve a $3,500 budget for the SIOP UN Team for use this year to be taken from SIOP’s Reserve Fund. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Board agreed to hold off on a vote until examining other budget requests.

ACTION ITEM: Board adopted the SIOP UN Team charter.

Alliance Update. Dr. Hakel discussed progress with the Alliance for Organizational Psychology. The governing body will be known as the Board of Delegates. It will be up to the governing bodies to decide who will be their delegates.  We want to be light and flexible. There will be a meeting in April at the conference. We have set an initiation fee of $3,500 Euro for any federated society that would join us. The three partners are responsible for that. We have talked about ongoing dues, but have not set anything. For next year’s budget and not this year, there will be a request coming through the External Affairs portfolio to pay that initiation fee.  We are not yet incorporated anywhere, so we have no bank account yet. A contingency plan would be to incorporate here, but we are looking at the Netherlands so this isn’t just a US initiative. Dr. McPhail noted that setting up the corporation will require fees. How will that work? Dr. Hakel said we will likely take it out of the initiation fees.  Dr. McPhail asked if SIOP needs to make a commitment to fund that. Dr. Hakel said yes, there will be a formal request in next year’s budget. Dr. McPhail asked if it would be helpful for SIOP to commit to paying the 3,5000 Euro for the Alliance initiation fee, with the expectation that it will come out of next year’s budget. Dr.  Zickar made the motion. Dr. Thayer seconded it. Motion approved.

ACTION ITEM: Board committed to paying the $3,500 Euro for the Alliance initiation fee, with the expectation that it will come out of next year’s budget.

Dr. McPhail then summarized the motions the board had proposed that would require funding: Branding: $20,000, New (Go Lightly) member community: $20,000. UN budget: $3,500 and the rest of their budget would go into the budget next year.  We have $57,000, so we can fund all of these at this point.  Dr. McPhail noted that under some circumstance SIOP’s finances could go awry and the gains that we have seen could evaporate, which would put us in a position of spending reserves that would put us below our goal. I think that is something we only should address if it were to happen. You make the decision at a time when you have excess and modify it if unexpected things happen.

Board voted on the GoLightly member community motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board voted to move forward with the Go Lightly proposal for an online member community and to fund this proposal for the first year from reserves.

The board voted on the branding motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board endorsed the direction of the Branding Subcommittee to begin negotiating on their top choice vendor, Digital Culture Consulting, to define an initial step for this fiscal year. Depending on successful negotiation, the group can get approval of the Emergency Action Committee to approve the initial phase and communication strategy not to exceed a cost $20,000.

UN Team charter budget. (cont.) Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved a $3,500 budget for the SIOP UN Team for use this year to be taken from SIOP’s Reserve Fund. The rest of the team  budget would go into the SIOP budget next year.

President Colella said this is a very conservative budget.  We still have some excess in reserves. Dr. McPhail encouraged those we left as budget items to be placed into the relative budget lines when the next budget is prepared. There was discussion of a transition plan for Dr. McPhail leaving the board.

DUES INCREASE. Mr. Nershi said we should have a systematic plan for dues increases so we aren’t just waiting until we have a financial problem to think about them. If we have an announced schedule to raise dues, it will be easier. Dr. McPhail noted that we get more than half our income from the conference. From a strategic standpoint, we need to increase our sources of revenue.  We need sufficient income over a lengthy period of time to support some of these initiatives. There was discussion that the cost of APA membership requirement can also be a problem. What does it do to us in terms of our representation to APA if we advertise that you do not need to be a member of APA after your initial SIOP membership is approved? There was discussion of other revenue sources, such as CE credits.  President Colella noted that since we don’t need a dues increase right now, she would say let’s not vote for one. Dr. McPhail said that if we increase by 15% now, we may close off the opportunity to increase a larger amount later.  Dr. Rogelberg added that we don’t need to ask to increase conference fees. Dr. McPhail said we have done in the past to balance the budget.

ELECTIONS DISCUSSION. (cont.)

Dr. Reynolds summarized the progress of the discussion.  We discussed the issue of how much discretion the Elections Committee has and should have and how they use it; how nominations are collected; and if we should continue to choose names to go on the ballot simply based on the number of nominations. I don’t think there are any changes in the administrative procedures that would require a bylaws change, but the number of candidates on the ballots and the minimum number of nominations needed, etc., would require a bylaws change. We also discussed the winner selection method. Other topics discussed include posting of bios on SIOP.org instead of just the voting site and the ability to continue to submit nominations throughout the nominations period instead of just once.  Also, posting the results needs to be discussed with the candidates ahead of time. Dr. Brannick asked if there is a process for identifying alternates should a candidate decline to run. Mr. Nershi this would be a case where the nominee with the highest number of nominations would be the alternate. We would simply impose the rules of nominations in that circumstance. Dr. Reynolds said he would like to discuss the number of nominations that a person is allowed to make for a particular office. Right now we have to allow people to have at least three spaces for nominations to be filled. Dr. Salas said that his committee had wanted more direction about how to choose from the nominees who would be on the ballot. While he would like to retain discretion, he said we are a different organization than we were 20 years ago and need more transparency.  Dr. Salas said he does not think there should be any discretion on behalf of the Elections Committee. There was some agreement that it might be allowed in case of a tie.  Mr. Nershi said that as it is written now, that is the only discretion there is. There was further discussion of discretion. Dr. Hakel stated that discretion and transparency are incompatible. If you have five people with three nominations and it’s up the committee to choose among the people who are tied, we would be directed to choose amongst them for representation, according to the bylaws.  We would look for underrepresented groups. Dr. Rogelberg suggested removing discretion for ties and making it random. Mr. Nershi suggested having the results certified that the Elections Committee has submitted the nominations for the ballot in accordance with the approved bylaws.  Dr. Thayer said it is a question of paying attention to the representation or the taking care of the tension. Dr. Salas noted that this is not only about complaints. There are senior people in our field making phone calls about elections to the Election Committee that are inappropriate. He said he wants random breaking of ties. Dr. Highhouse asked if the board cares about a situation in which there is no academic on the ballot or no practitioner on the ballot. Would we be okay with that? Dr. McPhail asked how many years would we be willing to go with no woman on the ballot? Dr. Rogelberg noted that there are a lot more women members now. Dr. Reynolds noted that we have discussed that we do not have broad representation of minorities on the leadership team. Dr. Rogelberg suggested that could be solved by trying to seek out high potential minorities. Dr. McPhail suggested amending the bylaws to have a minimum number of nominations and anyone who gets that many is on the ballot. Then you don’t even have to break ties. Dr. Reynolds said the proposal for next year is to set the number of seats on the ballot to five for president and four for the remaining offices, except APA rep, which APA says the maximum is three for each open rep seat. Dr. McPhail moved to adopt the administrative procedures as proposed for the next round of elections. Dr. Rogelberg: proposed an amendment that the Elections Committee does not use their discretion to fill the ballot in the case of ties. Instead, they use a random process to break ties. Dr. Highhouse seconded the amendment.  The amendment carries. Now this is part of the main motion.

Dr. Zickar motioned for an amendment to remove the one-year provision to the main motion. Dr. Salas seconded it.  Motion failed.

Vote on main motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board adopted the administrative procedures as proposed by the Elections Committee for the next round of elections, with the addition that the Elections Committee does not use their discretion to fill the ballot in the case of ties. Instead, they use a random process to break ties

Dr. Reynolds said the board still needs to address two things. First, do we want to propose a bylaws change? Dr. Thayer said he would like to reduce the number of nominations that can be made by any individual at any given time. Dr. McPhail said he would like to see it referred to the Strategic Planning task force.  President Colella may form this task force over the next few months. Dr. McPhail said this is setting a precedent for how to recommend things to the task force. Dr. Thayer moved to refer the issue of a potential bylaws change to the Strategic Planning task force, who would look at the issues of the number of nominations by one individual and whether or not we can have more than the stated amount of nominees; removal of the discretion language; and the possibility of having a broader impact. Dr. Salas seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 

ACTION ITEM: Board voted to refer the issue of a potential bylaws change to the Strategic Planning task force, who would look at the issues of the number of nominations by one individual and whether or not we can have more than the stated amount of nominees; and removal of the discretion language.

Dr. Reynolds explained to the board that a letter has circulated which paraphrases conversations he had with members requesting elections results. He said no and gave reasons why. The letter says there are too few people voting for presidents by splitting up the number of candidates. The letter states there are not many people needed to elect the president. This will be printed as a letter to the editor in TIP. A candidate in the last election added a letter and a petition which calls for change and proposed that a task force be created that would include a proportion of leaders compared to the entire membership. There was further discussion of how the board should address the letter and petition. There was discussion of the nature of the letter and whether or not it expresses inaccuracies. Dr. McPhail noted that if those involved read the minutes from 2010 they would have seen that we started reviewing the procedures several years ago. Lisa Steelman, the editor of TIP, said the letter should be published for transparency. There was further discussion of the letters in TIP, including whether or not they are factual in entirety or opinion. Dr. Reynolds summarized that the elections committee should go forward with a response, keep it to the facts, recognize the legitimate concerns that were raised, and publicize the new policy that has been approved.

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

Status of LEC Meeting. Mr. Nershi gave a brief overview of the status of the LEC. It has not been profitable the last few years. We got a task force together to make changes. We’re already locked in for this year’s meeting. It is in New Orleans and the topic is on sustainability. The Emergency Action Committee did approve funding to bring in a good speaker. We are hoping to book Thomas Freidman. The 2013 meeting will be in Richmond. For 2014, the LEC may be a completely different meeting. There was discussion of how the LEC was formed and the way the program is organized. Mr. Nershi said that since its inception, the LEC has been a deep dive into one topic. That means attendees are not likely to attend every single meeting. We have thought about having more than one topic or possibly just stick with very appealing topics and visit them more frequently.  Those who attend the event really like it. There was further discussion about topic selection and what would appeal to practitioners, the main focus of the event. Maybe if it looked a bit more like research and practice, it might be appealing.  Dr. Peterson suggested the issue is how many conferences a person will go to and how closely it relates to what they do in their job. Dr. McPhail suggested a half-day regional conference where a person doesn’t have to travel far and we can easily gather a large number of people. Mr. Nershi said we have also talked about collaborating with regional I-O groups. Mr. Nershi said another possibility is making this a very exclusive thing, more costly, a high-level meeting and having it in a location like Napa Valley. Maybe just make it by invitation. Dr. Thayer suggested repackaging it and selling it to business schools. Dr. Salas suggested getting together an independent task force. Dr. McPhail noted that the financial implications need to be looked at in the overall context of the financials of the society. Mr. Nershi said we have been approached by Division 13 for ways to work together.  They are interested in working with us on the LEC.

Research Accessibility for Practitioners Update. Mr. Nershi said we have about 200 subscribers. However, we need 600. We don’t think we have really penetrated the market much right now. People still don’t know about it. Dr. Thayer suggested a booth on this for the Annual Conference. Dr. Reynolds suggested another wave of marketing while we are still in the reduced rate. Dr. Brannick suggested reaching out to the Professional Practice Committee for ideas. There were other idea suggestions,  such as Newsbriefs, emails, TIP, etc. What if we stabilized at 300? Perhaps we should have a contingency plan. Dr. Rogelberg suggested that as we move toward the end of this reduced rate period we take a little bit of a financial hit and provide all practitioners with free access for two weeks. There was more discussion of providing free access. Mr. Nershi said the feedback from members was the strongest of any offering we’ve ever had from SIOP.  Dr. Reynolds said this is about the marketing plan. You have to hit people so many times to get them to be aware. We need to start marketing it more and get the message out in many different arenas.

CRSPPP Revised Petition Update. The CRSPPP (APA Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology) petition has been re-submitted. We submitted a revised petition two years ago. They came back last year and wanted more information on three of the criteria: diversity, advanced preparation (our stands on post-doc training) and how we evaluate continuing education and development of our members. If we don’t apply for the specialty, another division within APA could. Dr. Hakel suggested that once it has been passed by council that our council reps recommend to change the period from seven years to ten. It is unusual for a division to have this status. It is usually organizations or coalitions of organizations to be proponents of a specialty.  Dr. Brannick said that across some of the other specialties we definitely have some shared interest, specifically in terms of continuing education.  The common interest is that there are other specialties that don’t require and don’t monitor CE credit for professional development. I don’t know that the committee would say they don’t like that we don’t require it, but they wanted more information. Dr. Reynolds thanked Dr. Brannick for her work on this.

ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

APA Council Rep Report. Dr. Peterson said there is no news to report since the last board meeting. We have a council meeting in a few weeks and have not seen an agenda yet.  Dr. Hakel asked about APA’s budgetary circumstances. Dr. Peterson said they are okay right now. A substantial amount of their revenues come from real estate. A substantial amount of their revenues come from publishing and he thinks they are overly optimistic in increasing their income through electronic distribution in an era where information is becoming freer and cheaper. They are concerned about declining membership and declining dues. Dr. Thayer said there was an amendment to the bylaws proposed in regards to setting dues for retirees. They wanted a bylaws amendment that would empower council to change the dues. It was rejected.

Provide Direction to ERC Regarding Advocacy Priorities. Dr. Foster-Thompson said the ERC (External Relations Committee) has requested input regarding what their strategic direction or priorities should be. Dr. Reynolds noted that there is a relationship between this request and the long range planning committee as well as the advocacy task force. Dr. Brannick asked who will determine the priorities of the group. They will need guidance about priorities. Dr. Thayer noted that the divisions of APA are pretty organized about nominating people to committees. We need a systematic way to decide who to nominate for committees. Mr. Nershi said he received a list of all APA committee and board members from Deidre Knapp, and he has to go through each one to see who is a SIOP member. This is within the past two weeks.  First, the ERC needs a vote of support for the systematic process around nominations. Additional advocacy priorities will be forthcoming from the strategic planning group.

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)

Policy on Methods to Electronically Disseminate our Publications. There was a request from Allen Kraut to make our book series chapters available for electronic sale.  Dr. Highhouse said this seems to be a publisher issue. Also, is it under prevue of the Publications Board? Mr. Nershi said we are working with Wiley to develop an electronic product for educators so they can collect chapters from our series. Wiley has this capability already. Instructors could create e-books that would pull chapters from our publications. We would aggregate chapters from specific books and these would be marketed to universities and professors. Kraut has formed a marketing committee for the Professional practice Series. The more you ask the publishers for things, the more they do for you. Dr. Highhouse said Dr. Kraut wanted the Publications Board to do a better job of marketing the books. He discussed several tasks on the Publications Board’s plate. If this is something we want to make a priority, it is probably going to need to be a task force under the Publications Officer. Mr. Nershi explained that when he proposed the Publications Board he envisioned it would also include marketing. Dr. Highhouse said he thinks the scholarship side of the books and journals was in the Publications Board’s comfort zone, but the marketing side seems to be a different animal. Dr. Rogelberg added that academic publishers do not seem to be prepared to penetrate the practice market. They focus on libraries, and once they get the libraries they are happy. Mr. Nershi said we have not done as much as we could with marketing these books. My concern right now is that Wiley has a lot of titles and they are not paying attention to us unless we really push it. There was more discussion of what SIOP is doing internally to promote the books as well as the effectiveness of Wiley at promoting our books. Dr. Highhouse explained that there will be a lag in editorship when every editor seems to turnover at once. During the following down period might be a time to put together a task force on marketing the books. Mr. Nershi stressed that the main task is talking to Wiley’s marketing people, but if we don’t ask them they are happy to ignore us.

Dr.  Reynolds said it sounds like there is a recommendation to create a task force under the Publications Board to discuss marketing of the series, including the idea to sell electronic chapters. Is it a recommendation to consider as we make the transition of Dr. Highhouse going off the board? There was further discussion of how individual book chapters would be sold and who they would appeal to, as well as how this would help diversify SIOP’s revenue stream.  Mr. Nershi added that the contract with Wiley can be terminated at any time with 90-days’ notice. Dr. Rogelberg suggested at the next Executive Board meeting taking a look at changing the model for the book series. The market for these books is saturated. Maybe a briefing series with much smaller papers that is constantly updated would be more popular, or a magazine.  Dr. Highhouse said he would talk to Dr. Kraut. Dr. McPhail added to the magazine idea, describing a magazine that was written as a popular press magazine but only included information that was vetted in science. If it was well-written and easy to read we could sell that to 250,000 members of SHRM.  There was discussion of news briefs as well as podcasts. Dr. Salas brought up an application called “Teamwork” that gives advice and it costs 99 cents every time you login to it. Dr. Reynolds concluded that this should go to the marketing task force of the Publications Board.

OTHER MATTERS

Jeanerette Award. Dr. Hakel said he is proud to report that is all in order. The contribution has been received and the memorandum of understanding has been received. We will be putting out a call for those awards soon. The Foundation Board last September undertook an action to raise the amount of money to establish a named award or scholarship.  It was raised to $75,000 for named awards and $50,000 for a named scholarship or an incubator fund. That will slow down the proliferation of awards. We are trying to be responsive to concerns voiced in this body. We have also discussed raising the amounts of awards by $1,500 to $2,000. The Foundation trustees are recommending that either in the upcoming budget cycle or the one after that SIOP consider raising the funds of the SIOP awards, at an increase of about $3,000 total to match the Foundation awards. At the winter conference call a few days ago the Foundation board discussed other items. The SHRM Foundation-SIOP Foundation joint award was discussed. We are recommending that a task force be established to develop this concept further. It would go toward organizations rather than to individuals for the implementation of best practices. Something along the lines of a good housekeeping seal of approval. Dr. Hakel said he sees it as four members, and conceivably the awards chair would be on it.  Basically we are asking for interest from the EB in pursuing the idea further. Dr. Reynolds suggested  thoughts be forwarded to President Colella.

SIOP Foundation Proposal for SIOP Scholars. In September, Dr. McPhail suggested a college of scholars to be developed through the SIOP Foundation. The basic notion is that just as there are Fulbright scholars, we could create something aimed for young members of this group who have been identified by SIOP either by being awarded a scholarship or involved in research grants or other projects that in some sense involve recognition from SIOP. It could be launched in conjunction with the Foundation dessert reception. Should we proceed? Dr. Zickar questioned the point of the designation.  We already have fellows.  Dr. Hakel said it is early career recognition. One of the concerns the Membership Committee has expressed is about keeping early career members  interested and engaged in SIOP. Dr. McPhail said it is also a way of keeping the activities of the Foundation fresh in peoples’ minds. We hope these people would become major contributors later on to the SIOP Foundation. There was discussion of the name. Dr. Thayer explained they would be called SIOP Scholars because the objective is to get them involved in SIOP. Dr. Highhouse asked if it would be like giving double awards since the SIOP scholars would already have won something. Dr. McPhail said it is the same way the Fulbright scholar works. Dr. Hakel noted there is no money associated with this. Dr. Reynolds said we would be extending the value of the award over time without giving additional funding. This would apply only to those specially oriented toward scholarships rather than small grants. It would focus on pre-PhD members. There was general agreement to proceed. No need for a formal vote.  There was further discussion of specific Foundation funds. Dr. Thayer noted that if anyone is interested in the issue of adverse impact, the adverse impact Emerging Issues fund is approaching its goal. It is short of the target that it needs to meet by December. If you are interested, a donation would be very helpful.

Returning Veterans Program. Dr. Nathan Ainspan sent President Colella and Dr. Reynolds an email asking if SIOP would support a program to help returning veterans assimilate into the workforce. Dr. Reynolds encouraged Ainspan to write a proposal for the board. Ainspan is currently working for a civilian agency that looks at civilian employees of the military. He sees a strong need for guidance of those coming out of the military on how package yourself and how to be successful in the job selection process. Many of them have no experience in a job interview, or it has been a while. It can be tough translating military experience into what employers are looking for.  Dr. Reynolds said he has received generally positive reactions from the board.  There was general agreement that this was a good idea and opportunity for SIOP to show our members’ expertise. Dr. Reynolds explained that one of the goals for his term as president is helping members assist pro-bono on issues like these. He would love to use the new online community platform to allow people to share documents, etc. Dr. Thayer moved to accept this proposal. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the proposal to support a program to help returning veterans assimilate into the workforce.

Dr. Salas will be rolling off the board after three years. He said it has been a privilege to work with the board. Please continue to move the SIOP family forward.  It is also Dr. McPhail and Dr. Highhouse’s last meeting. Dr. Reynolds gave formal recognition to each of the departing board members. Mr. Nershi: asked the departing members to please note your term is not over until April. Dr. Reynolds said this board doesn’t have much time together. He doesn’t intend to make the obligation much bigger, but he does see an opportunity to have more regular conversation about issues. He is looking for input on willingness to join regularly scheduled calls. Dr. Highhouse said it might make some of the meetings shorter, too. Dr. McPhail said it is particularly helpful to ensure the deeper research happens between meetings. Mr. Nershi reminded the board we will need to make sure we are not taking official action during these meetings. We cannot give the impression that there are things going on behind closed doors. Dr. Zickar suggested the new online community will help this process.
 
Dr. McPhail moved to adjourn the meeting. Dr. Thayer seconded. Board closed the meeting at 3:20 p.m.