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

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Winter Executive Board Meeting

Philadelphia Marriott Downtown
January 9-10, 2015

Present: Tammy Allen, Alex Alonso, Cristina Banks, Jose Cortina, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Deirdre Knapp, Laura Koppes Bryan, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney Lowman, Kathleen Lundquist Fred Oswald, Jim Outtz, Deborah Rupp, Evan Sinar, Deborah Whetzel. David Nershi was also present. Scott Tannenbaum arrived Saturday.

Absent: Allen Church, Mo Wang.

CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS

President Cortina called the meeting to order at 3:33 pm. He thanked the board members for attending.  He welcomed Deirdre Knapp, a new member of the board and congratulated Jim Outtz and Deborah Rupp for their election to president-elect and publications officer, respectively. He also congratulated the other new officers, Financial Officer/Secretary Scott Tannenbaum and Membership Services Officer Mo Wang, who were not in attendance.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Dr. Lundquist introduced the financial report. We are a little ahead financially compared with this time last year. SIOP has $2.6 million in assets, which leaves us more than $300,000 in excess reserves. Our policy states that when reserves exceed by more than 10% the minimum goal as of the close of the fiscal year, the Executive Board is to be notified for consideration and possible approval to release excess funds We have a few proposals that will give us ideas for what to do with this. We have sufficient cash. We are in good financial shape. If you look at the financial report, we are $180,000 in a deficit, which is not unusual for this time of year because we have not yet started to get many registrations for the conference. We are a little worse than we have been in the past, and that is particularly due to member dues. Because we pushed earlier last year for dues to be paid, they were paid in the last fiscal year instead of this one.

Sponsorships for the conference are up considerably, $40,000 ahead of last year. Investments didn’t perform as well. We had higher meeting and travel expenses. All of those things are okay because they are within the budget expectations. So the deficit will disappear as conference registrations continue to come in. Dr. Banks asked how this compares to two years ago, since last year was an anomaly. Dr. Lundquist said we compared the finances to two years ago, and we are doing slightly worse, but we are spending money and investing in things that we were not paying for two years ago, such as the work with Lewis-Burke and Associates. We did make some very optimistic assumptions about what is going to happen with the conference this year. Mr. Nershi explained that we expect to see a higher number of registrations in Philadelphia. We opened registration early last year. With Philadelphia, people don’t need as much advance planning. We are still confident that Philadelphia will have high attendance. We should be looking at approximately 4,000 attendees. Dr. Hakel noted that two years ago we were concerned that we may have fewer members paying dues due to the dues increase. Dr. Lundquist noted that we have made more revenue, so we may have less people renewing, but we’re making more money.

Proposals for Spending of Excess Funds. Dr. Lundquist said these funds can be re-invested, if we choose. We do not have to spend $308,000. We have several proposals for use of these funds. Dr. Lundquist explained SIOP’s policy for use of excess funds. Dr. Lowman explained that he thinks it would be helpful in the future if those proposing ideas for use of excess funds have a good idea of the policy and goals we have for using them. Mr. Nershi said people were asked to explain how the proposals relate to our policy for using the funds. Funds may be expended to
1) Further one or more strategic goals of the EB, 2) invest in technology, and/or 3) provide funding to the SIOP Foundation, Inc., to support the future of I/O psychology.” Dr. Lundquist stressed that some of the proposals involve one-time investments and others involve ongoing costs.

Proposal to Fund Travel of President-Elect and Past President to International Conferences. Several members suggested reporting of any events by the attendees should SIOP provide funding for the past president and president-elect to attend international conferences. Dr. Kozlowski noted that since schedules would need to allow for the travel and the conferences do not occur every year, it would be rare that all three members of the presidential trio would attend an international conference. Dr. Hakel gave a brief description of some of these events. Dr. Kozlowski noted that one of his goals when he becomes SIOP president is to strengthen connections with other organizations, and this is not a terribly large amount of money, so this seems like a good idea. There was further discussion. President Cortina said he would love to see this become an ongoing part of the SIOP budget.  Dr. Banks said it would make more sense for these people to be attending different meetings instead of all going to the same one.  She suggested pulling together the benefits of this type of activity. There was discussion of how much discretion there should be over who attends what. Dr. Outtz said he thinks the greatest leverage comes from sharing research. SIOP is looked at as a global leader in I-O. President Cortina noted that there are smaller conferences (as compared to EAWOP) at which SIOP could have an impact. Dr. Hakel discussed the relationship to the Alliance for Organizational Psychology and how it can be used to help decide where SIOP’s leaders can have a positive impact and make international connections. Dr, Knapp noted that there are also domestic meetings that SIOP could connect at. She would like non-international events to also be considered by the leadership.

Proposal for Distinguished Awards Funding for the Best and Brightest of I-O Psychology. Dr. Hakel explained a little bit about the history of the Foundation. This would be a one-time expense of $115,000. We see this as a way to relieve SIOP of needing to use operating funds totaling about $12,000 for awards each cycle. This proposal is not to soak up the whole amount. It is to fund about $4,500 of that per year to support three Distinguished Awards. We have gotten a good return on investment of our award funds. Dr. Outtz asked what the advantage of it coming out of the Foundation is as opposed to SIOP. Dr. Hakel explained that because the Foundation funds are endowed they are sustained based on investment revenue as opposed to member dues. Dr. Lundquist explained that this would require an up-front investment, but it would relieve us of paying this amount indefinitely. Dr. Hakel explained that there is a potential tax liability of not spending the excess funds. Dr. Lowman suggested a slight revision of the proposal title.

Proposal to Fund Administrative Office Association Management Software (AMS). Mr. Nershi explained that most associations use AMS. Right now we have a number of things on different platforms and we work with a number of partners. We are trying to consolidate that. This would allow us to consolidate our website CMS, sponsors, conference submissions, online community, etc. SIOP staff and members would benefit from this and it would bring us in line with best practices of associations. The cost is a moving target. It could be as much as $100,000. We only have 7.5 full-time equivalent employees, but we have 8,000 members, so we are not really a small organization in terms of AMS capability. We would be looking at a set-up fee of possibly $70,000 and then an ongoing cost of $10,000-$20,000 per year.  We have looked at a number of providers. Right now we are having an issue with getting a platform that can handle our conference submission software. With our external programmer leaving the business, we need to find a program that will support our conference submissions. Dr. Banks asked if we would still need programming done on top of the shell AMS. Mr. Nershi explained that we do not want a lot of customization. We are looking for a highly configurable program. We are looking for one AMS that will handle everything, but we might need a separate solution that can take the place of our conference submission and program software. Mr. Nershi said he is also looking into whether there is another programmer/consultant who could run the current Program Builder, but ideally we would find an AMS that consolidates all of this. Dr. Heggestad asked if the vendors that would be replaced with the AMS would offset the ongoing $10,000-$20,000 cost. Yes, the cost of eShow, DNN, and Moe Yassine (programmer) would go away. Dr. Lundquist said she thinks it would off-set most but not all. Dr. Hakel said he would regard this as a mission critical update. Dr. Lowman asked if we currently set aside funding for technology advances and major expenditures. Mr. Nershi said we have budgeted for some ongoing expenditures, such as computer upgrades. Dr. Lowman suggested a major technology fund for future use. Dr. Lundquist explained that we do also always have the reserves to fall back on. Dr. Allen asked how this ties into the new IT position at the Administrative Office. Mr. Nershi said this person would help us manage this system and manage our needs in this area. We may not be able to bring them on board fast enough to help with the implementation, but they would be involved. Dr. Alonzo asked if we are looking into marketing capability, such as for sending emails, etc. Yes.

Proposal to Invigorate LEC Attendance and Value by Aggressively Investing in High-Caliber External Speakers. Dr. Sinar suggested putting a higher degree of investment into an external speaker(s) for the LEC. He currently does not believe we provide the type of speakers at the LEC who can bring in audiences inside I-O or outside of I-O. We need a mechanism for drawing people to this event. This would be a more aggressive approach to promoting the LEC, and it would not just include a speaker but a branding element to building up the LEC. The goal here is to increase attendance at the event. We could make an incremental investment this year and then decide whether or not to continue. Dr. Lowman asked if the assumption is that those speakers we bring in would be more widely-known and appeal to a wider audience. Dr. Sinar said the proposal is that this is an opportunity to increase visibility outside of I-O. Dr. Lowman said paying the money to bring in a so-called “big name” speaker has not been very effective at bringing in psychologists to these events. It would be worth tracking who these speakers bring in. Dr. Lundquist asked if this would begin at the 2015 LEC. Dr. Sinar said he anticipated it would not begin until 2016. Dr. Banks noted that HRPS holds their conference at the same time as the LEC. So we would have trouble promoting to them.

There was discussion of whether or not there is evidence that big name speakers increase attendance. Dr. Sinar explained that these speakers probably would not be able to command their fees if they were not a draw.  Mr. Nershi said the budget for speakers is very low, about $750. Dr. Lundquist suggested this being a 2- or 3-year experiment to measure the impact on event attendance. Dr. Alonzo explained that often the concerts at his SHRM conference motivate more people to attend compared with big names like Hillary Clinton. So we need to know what motivates people to attend the LEC. Dr. Banks asked, how do we grow the audience? Do we need entertainment? Mr. Nershi explained that for the LEC, we might have people who would drop in for a speaker and that the entertainment options might not be a draw. Dr. Sinar said he believes there is revenue out there that we are not capturing. We are not on the radar of the potential attendees. We need to find a distinctive way to rebrand the LEC. This is one proposal for doing that. Mr. Nershi explained that we are also looking to make a change to the days that it is held based on survey data. Dr. Banks suggested a friendly amendment to the proposal that would expand the scope to not just focus on speakers but also anything that will increase the audience. Dr. Lowman said we should probably also have more money in place for funding speakers. Dr. Elaine Pulakos, the LEC chair, was supportive of this investment, but we have to couple it with a broader brand push for the event.

Dr. Allen asked to what extent we want to increase attendance. It is supposed to be a small event and we have had great attendance the last two years. Dr. Lundquist explained that we could get more money out of each attendee. They are getting a bargain. Mr. Nershi explained that the large cities we are holding the LEC in will also require more income from the event to make if financially viable. I don’t think anyone wants to see this larger than 300 or 350 people. Dr. Cortina said he thinks even smaller so that we can have break-out sessions. Dr. Outtz noted that we need a better understanding of our intended audience. Dr. Allen explained that increasing the fee would help ensure we are getting quality attendees. Mr. Nershi explained that when the LEC was first launched the thought was to bring together I-O psychologists with business leaders, HR, etc. Dr. Lundquist said we cannot fix the current underfunding for speakers without some of this excess reserve money. Dr. Cortina agreed that we can discuss this further, but we need to send them some money now. Dr. Lundquist said she didn’t think $10,000 was enough money. Dr. Oswald said he would like to know what the intended uses would be. Dr. Outtz said he would like to hear from Dr. Pulakos how much funding he would need. Dr. Lundquist said right now the LEC is not really making its budget. It is a very successful event, but it’s running on a shoe-string. We would attract different and possibly more people if we charged more for registration. Other organizations charge about $1,000.

Proposal of an Honorarium for SIOP Living History Series 2015 Session. Dr. Oswald explained that these are pretty distinguished people. All of these people are very advanced in their careers and $300 might be insulting. Dr. Kozlowski said we have already been doing it as a token. We don’t even have to do this anymore. Give them a plaque or a free room at the conference hotel.

Proposal for SIOP 70th Anniversary Birthday Cake and Time Capsule. Dr. Lundquist noted that SIOP could pay for this and the previous proposal within SIOP’s current budget.
Dr. Lundquist asked for a motion. Dr. Whetzel moved that SIOP fund out of the reserve fund the Association Management Software proposal. This is very important to the functioning of the society. Heggestad seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously

ACTION ITEM: Board approved funding out of the excess SIOP reserve funds for Association Management Software for the SIOP Administrative Office for an exact amount to be determined, but potentially for a total of $100,000 one-time cost and up to $20,000 per year on an ongoing basis, to be offset partly by other cost savings.

There was discussion of when the money for the presidential travel proposal would have to be spent and at whose discretion. Dr. Lundquist said the expenditure would be overseen by the current presidential trio who would discuss how they would spend their $10,000.  Dr. Oswald made a motion, pending a plan that is presented by the presidential trio to the EB, to approve $10,000 to fund travel to international conferences for SIOP’s president-elect and past president. Dr. Allen proposed a friendly amendment that this be the post-SIOP 2015 conference presidential trio instead of the current. Amendment accepted. Then this would be further explored as to whether it would be necessary on an ongoing basis. Dr. Lundquist seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved a motion, pending a plan that is presented by the presidential trio to the EB, to provide $10,000 from SIOP’s excess reserves to fund travel to international conferences for the SIOP president-elect and past president who will take office at the 2015 annual conference.

Dr. Lundquist requested that the last two proposals, regarding the honorarium and 70th birthday celebration, be funded through the regular budget cycle. Mr. Nershi said he will contact Dr. Cucina and let him know we are fine continuing the current honorarium for the Living History series and that we will find funding for the cake. Dr. Banks motioned that we appropriate $10,000 to the LEC committee to use for the speaker fees for the 2015 LEC. President Cortina asked if we are sure this has to be for speaker fees. Dr. Lundquist suggested that we defer action until tomorrow when we have more information about what the LEC is in need of in terms of funding.

Dr. Lundquist noted that she does not want SIOP to spend the full $308,000 of the excess reserve. We have a lot of ambitious projects coming up and our budget is tight. There was discussion of how much the Foundation proposal would require if the EB could not approve the full amount. Dr. Hakel said the Foundation would be happy for a contribution that would cover one Distinguished Award instead of all three. Even with less funding, the award would still be endowed. Dr. Banks explained that she would like to see the funds directly spent on member services. However, Dr. Oswald noted that one of the options for the spending of excess funds was giving to the Foundation. Dr. Hakel answered that the money would eventually be spent on the awards. Dr. Lowman suggested funding one third, so that they would fund one award at about $38,000. Dr. Knapp said she would like to know what other ideas for proposals might be out there. Dr. Lundquist said we could defer a decision on this. There was further discussion of how much to potentially fund of the Foundation proposal as well as projected costs of the AMS proposal. The Foundation is not currently paying for any of the SIOP awards. With this proposal we wanted to transfer 3 of the 8 SIOP awards to be funded by the Foundation. Mr. Nershi explained that providing funding to the Foundation could be beneficial to SIOP because the Foundation could then use their own funds to sponsor educational programs for SIOP. Dr. Hakel said we would probably eventually come back and ask for more money to fund future awards.  Dr. Oswald made a motion for SIOP to fund $35,000 of the requested amount for the Foundation awards. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Dr. Cortina made a friendly amendment to increase the amount to $40,000. Dr. Oswald accepted the amendment. Dr. Whetzel seconded. Drs. Hakel and Banks abstained from the vote. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved $40,000 for the SIOP Foundation to be used to create an endowment that will fund one SIOP Distinguished Award.

Dr. Heggestad motioned to approve the items in the consent agenda. Dr. Alonzo seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the consent agenda, including the following actions:

  • Report on Interim Board Actions
  • Approval of September Meeting Minutes
  • 401K Plan Restatement
  • Portfolio Officer Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters.)
    • Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
    • Publications – Allan Church
    • Communications – Alex Alonso
    • External Affairs – Milt Hakel
    • Membership Services – Eric Heggestad
    • Professional Practice – Cris Banks
    • Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
    • Research and Science – Fred Oswald

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS UPDATE

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

Big Data Guidelines. Dr. Oswald explained that there was a Big Date subcommittee to assess the movement in this area. The committee suggested guidelines for use of Big Data. These are not like the Guidelines for Personnel Selection, but they can be used for many purposes once they are out there. We would like to get member opinions on this. There was discussion of the use of the word “guidelines,” which has a technical meaning incongruent with the purpose of the project. Various other terms were suggested instead, such as “guidance” and “best practices.” Dr. Oswald explained that guidelines are not enforceable but they can be brought up in court as professional standards. The group covered three issues: they describe what Big Data is first and then split into privacy issues, informed consent, and integrity of data. The document then touches many major points about how data are collected, typical uses, etc. They refer to APA several times. One area not included that they are working on is the educational component. Given all of this is happening, some of our grad students need to know more about data and data storing, etc. They are proposing to send this out for further feedback. The target audience for now is I-O psychologists. Dr. Knapp suggested adding more information about HIPPA and other regulations that I-O psychologists may not be as aware of. Dr. Heggestad noted that it is important that we note this is for I-O psychologists and no other professions. EB doesn’t need to take any action.

President Cortina adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

President Cortina called the meeting to order at 8:16 am.

ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

APA Council Rep Report. Dr. Whetzel explained that Dr. Rodney Lowman has been elected to the Council Leadership Team as chair. We have also for a long time been discussing reducing the size of council. No real decisions have been made. The apportionment ballot was sent out and we have retained our four seats on council. We still have a 170+ member council. We are looking into having conversations about mega issues, such as healthcare issues. It might not seem to have anything to do with us, but to the extent that a hospital is an organization and has employees, we can have a lot to say. Dr. Lowman said they will be making a lot of changes and delegating a lot of those duties to an expanded Board of Trustees. The election results for the new leadership team were announced December 27, and we have to plan meetings for February. There was discussion regarding why APA would like to reduce council: to become more nimble and make it easier to operate. There was discussion about some of the issues involved in reducing the size of council. Division 14 and I-O psychology is well-represented.

The board moved into executive session at 8:40 am to discuss the Awards Committee recommendations. The board resumed regular session at 9:24 am. Dr. Heggestad made a motion to accept the committee recommendation on the William A. Owens Scholarly Achievement Award. The motion was seconded by Dr. Lundquist. The motion was passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the William A. Owens Scholarly Achievement Award.

The board returned to executive session at 9:25 to continue their discussion of the Awards Committee recommendations. At 9:30 am the board returned to regular session. Dr. Bryan made a motion, with a second by Dr. Kozlowski, to approve the Awards Committee recommendation on the Raines Wallace Award pending confirmation and additional information. The motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the Raines Wallace Award.

Dr. Lowman made a motion to approve the committee recommendation on the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award. The second was made by Dr. Lundquist. The motion passed

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the Distinguished Professional Contributions Award.

Dr. Bryan made a motion to approve the remainder of the Awards Committee recommendations. Motion seconded by Dr. Alonzo. The motion was approved.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the remainder of the Awards Committee recommendations.

President Cortina made a motion, seconded by Rodney Lowman, for the Awards Committee to draft a conflict of interest policy as it pertains to awards and bring it back to the Executive Board for review. Following a second by Dr. Lowman, the motion was approved.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion for the Awards Committee to draft a conflict of interest policy as it pertains to awards and bring it back to the Executive Board for review.

A brief discussion ensued about the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior within SIOP and how it might be applied in the awards review process. A comment was made that this policy should be explicit in the awards guidelines. Dr. Lundquist said she was uncomfortable with the Awards Committee judging behavior. Dr. Lowman said more information is needed.
Dr. Knapp said she would like to see recommendations that would put more teeth into the professional behavior policy.  Dr. Kozlowski said additional detail is needed for the various steps outlined in the policy. Dr. Lowman pointed out that APA has an ethics code which has been adopted by SIOP as our ethics code. However, not all SIOP members are members of APA. President Cortina said he would follow up with the SPARC Committee on this matter. President Cortina said he would request that the Awards Committee provide additional detail in its report to support its recommendations. This will make it easier for the Executive Board to understand the decision making process.

The board moved into executive session at 10:14 am to discuss the recommendation of the SIOP Fellowship Committee. At 10:47 the group returned to regular session. Dr. Hakel made a motion to approve the SIOP Fellow recommendations. This was seconded by Dr. Kozlowski and approved by the board.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendations of the SIOP Fellowship Committee.

FINANCIAL REPORT (continued)

President Cortina summarized the discussion from yesterday. We have not been able to get in touch with Elaine Pulakos. Dr. Sinar explained that he would like to consider investment in the LEC that is more than just incremental. Dr. Sinar moved that the board allocate $40,000 to the LEC to be distributed at the LEC chair’s discretion. It would revert back if not used and be reported back to the EB after the first year. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Dr. Banks withdrew he previous motion. Dr, Knapp noted hesitation with the amount of the motion. Dr. Lundquist explained that there is potential to realize some payback of this investment, especially if we were to increase the price. Dr. Kozlowski asked how we measure the success. Dr. Outtz asked, what would a SIOP member think of us allocating $40,000 to the LEC? Do we have a list of what we will be getting? Mr. Nershi said he sees this as a strategic move because we cannot continue to lean on the conference. We are looking at increasing registration costs in Boston this year as an intermediary increase to precede a registration increase to help cover the high costs in NYC the following year. Mr. Nershi also noted that this is something we can do to appeal to practitioners and veteran members who think the conference is too big, impersonal, etc. Dr. Lowman explained that we will probably make up for a lot of this with increasing the registration fee. President Cortina noted that another possibility might be that the $40,000 be broken down to be used over several years. Then we could determine whether or not this has a benefit over the course of more than one year. It needs to be clear that this is a one-time thing and that funds can carry over to next year.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion to allocate $40,000 to the LEC to be distributed at the LEC chair’s discretion. It would revert back if not used and be reported back to the EB after the first year.  

OTHER MATTERS

Presidential Travel Money. President Cortina would like to attend EAWOP in 2015. That will take place after his term of office. Dr. Hakel suggested paying for as much of the trip ahead of time as possible so it can be paid in this budget year and then following through the financial reporting procedure. Dr. Allen explained that she is not sure if expenses for presidential travel have ever been reimbursed for trips that take place after the presidency. We are setting a precedent. Dr. Cortina explained that he would be serving as past president of SIOP when he attends, so he would not be attending the meeting as president. Mr. Nershi explained that we have used presidential funds to pay for non-presidents to attend events. At EAWOP, they may not make the distinction between president and past president. Dr. Lundquist said the question is “should the money come from the $10,000 allocated yesterday or the actual presidential budget”? President Cortina said he was planning for EAWOP to be one of his trips, so there were things he didn’t attend because he wanted to be able to attend this event. He did not anticipate any issues but would like the go-ahead of the board. Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that this is what he should be doing as our president and past president. Let’s make it happen. Dr. Koppes Bryan made a motion to pay for the registration and pre-event expenses out of the presidential budget for this year and then SIOP would pay for the rest of the expenses out of the presidential trio’s $10,000 when the time comes next year. Motion seconded by Dr. Knapp. There was further discussion and the motion was withdrawn. Dr. Lundquist suggested President Cortina use his presidential funds and anything else simply comes out of the aforementioned budget.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS (continued)

Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists. President Cortina explained that there is a taskforce of ASPPB (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards) that is trying to figure out how to get licensing procedures in place for I-O and consulting psychologists. We were contacted by Gary Latham about this. Dr. Lowman explained that the intent is that ASPPB is trying to be responsive to the request from Division 13 reps and possibly others because the procedures in place in the model licensing act (ASPPB’s not APS’s) make it difficult for psychologist who are in our profession or consulting to complete the post-doc hours requirement. It sounds like they are trying to be responsive and accommodate the unique practices of people in the I-O field. They are trying to come up with a “passport” with the states who sign this so you can practice in any of those states. There are also many psychologists who deliver professional services virtually to people in other states or countries. Some states want people who deliver services virtually to be licensed in their home state as well as their clients’. Dr. Lowman expressed the desire to have a SIOP representative at these meetings to at least monitor what they are doing.  Dr. Allen explained that there was another meeting report that dealt with accrediting institutions. It dealt with the licensing of consulting as well as I-O psychologists. There was further discussion of licensing. Dr. Banks noted that some states are not friendly to licensing I-O psychologists. This is something that we need to be on top of.  Dr. Allen read from the minutes of a previous ASPPB meeting. She will send to the rest of the Board. This should be handled by the SIOP Licensing, Certification & Credentialing Committee. No action needed. Dr. Banks will ask the committee to look into this issue and put together a full briefing about the meetings with recommendations.

GOVERNANCE

Proposed Bylaws Amendments Update. Mr. Nershi explained that an email has gone out to voting members and that we have posted an article to the website. We have a discussion board on my.SIOP. There is one proposal that is getting quite a bit of comments, with one person in particular against and most of the rest in favor. We will send reminders. It is too late to change any wording in the amendments, but this is for the information of the Board. He encouraged them to read the comments.

Sunset Reports. Professional Practice Committee. Dr, Banks discussed the Professional Practice report. Dr. Koppes Bryan asked if we know how many members access EBSCO.  There was discussion of the SIOP Research Access service. Mr. Nershi explained that it seems to be growing in popularity and we will very soon be making up the cost. Dr. Banks said that she believes the committee is useful and should continue. Dr. Allen motioned to approve the recommendation. Dr. Oswald seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to continue with the Professional Practice Committee.

Organizational Frontiers Series. Mr. Nershi explained that Dr. Allan Church (absent) recommended to continue the committee. Dr. Lowman Moved. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the Organizational Frontiers Series Committee.

Scientific Affairs Committee. Dr. Oswald explained that the committee has been a hub of a lot of activity as SIOP has moved into performing more advocacy. He discussed the work of the GREAT Committee and Lewis-Burke. He suggested adding more language into the Administrative Manual about advocating for I-O as well as being explicit about representing practitioners. We could also include more about making connections outside of SIOP.  Dr. Oswald noted that the advocacy series in TIP was very useful. Science Speed Mentoring has started. Yes, we should continue to have the Scientific Affairs Committee. Dr. Hakel moved to approve the recommendation. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the Scientific Affairs Committee.

The board broke for lunch at noon. Board resumed session at 1:01 pm.

SUNSET REPORTS (continued)

External Relations Committee. Dr. Hakel recommended that the committee continue. It is fulfilling its charge. Dr. Knapp explained that things have changed a great deal lately.  A lot of committees now have involvement in advocacy efforts, and that was the original purpose of the External Relations Committee. The GREAT Committee seems over-extended and some of the things they have talked about doing are charges of the ERC. Can we coordinate ways for the committees to share work? There may be a lot of work that the ERC can offload from some of the other groups. Dr. Hakel agreed. Dr. Banks asked where Lewis-Burke falls. It would fall under the GREAT Committee under Scientific Affairs, but it also cross-cuts the portfolios. Dr. Banks explained that there was discussion about getting together the committees that work on external relations and visibility initiatives to discuss these core areas. Dr. Allen explained that they have tried to do this by setting aside time for the committee chairs to talk. She thinks each committee chair should get a copy of the briefing book so that they can keep up to date on what other committees are doing. Joan Brannick helped lead the discussion as facilitator a few meetings ago when we had committee chair training. Mr. Nershi explained that they just look for someone who has good board experience and are good at training. Could Dr. Allen do this at the April meeting? Dr. Allen said she could do this. Dr. Allen said she will debrief with Joan Brannick about training. Dr. Knapp moved to keep the ERC. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the External Relations Committee.

ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH (continued)

Update on Advocacy Efforts. Dr. Oswald said there is a lot going on and it is described in detail in the report. White House Committee on Aging involvement is one of them. Lewis-Burke keeps us very up to date with what they are doing in D.C. They are being very active and proactive, Dr. Kozlowski noted. If there is an issue that you know about, send it to Dr. Oswald to send to Lewis-Burke. There was further discussion of Lewis-Burke’s efforts for SIOP. Dr. Lowman commented that he would like to know how many people are attending the Lewis-Burke events in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts. Mr. Nershi added that we have had a meeting with Lewis-Burke because our initial agreement with them will end at the end of 2015. Dr. Banks asked if we were developing relationships with the government relations people at universities. Dr. Oswald said it is worth exploring.
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS

Update on Philadelphia Conference. Dr. Sinar noted that the program is together and moving along well. We will have the celebration of graduation event, similar to what we had in Hawaii. It will recognize recent and upcoming graduates. We think this event is important in engaging our student members who will soon be eligible for professional membership. This may somewhat address the attrition issues we have with students. Dr. Kristen Shockley has put together a subcommittee to collect experience sampling data from attendees. We want to know what sessions they are attending, where they are when they are not attending sessions, etc. Conference registration and hotel rooms have been compared against two years ago since Hawaii was a special case. So far we are a little slow on hotel and conference registrations. Many things are down. Not to a concerning degree. We have seen strong sponsorship rates though, so we have seen positive signs. Mr. Nershi noted that in general the picture is good. We are tracking very well comparing to Houston.

Workshop Working Group Work. Dr. Sinar explained that the workshops have been losing attendees. We are gathering data and surveying former attendees as well as non-attendees. We have looked at, if we trimmed back expenses, which would have the least impact on satisfaction.  The effort is underway. Dr. Kozlowski asked Sinar to discuss the movement out of SIOP’s Program Builder, which programs the events and sessions at the Annual Conference. You will have to create an entirely new procedure manual when we move to a new platform. Dr. Sinar noted that we will not be building it from scratch, however, because we will have a commercial platform instead of customized. Dr. Kozlowski suggested we plan for training on the new platform. This may mean trying to shadow the new program with the old Program Builder. They are concerned and we need to recognize that. Mr. Nershi noted that the AO is working on this daily. He is hopeful that the new system will be easier to use than Program Builder.

LEC 2015 Update. Mr. Nershi gave an update on the Leading Edge Consortium. The topic for this year is Building a High-Performance Organization: A Fresh Look at Performance Management. It will focus on driving a high-performance culture and case studies.  This will be October 2-3 in Boston. We hope the early date will help avoid any conflict with other events at that time. Elaine Pulakos is chairing. They are currently looking at who will be the Marketing Chair. They want someone who will aggressively market that event. We will get artwork by January 15. We will continue to aggressively market this year.  The committee is further ahead than past committees in terms of planning. Looking ahead, we wanted to go to New York City for several years. We are looking to go there in 2016. We have received a proposal to put on the LEC in conjunction with CUNY. They will be agreeable to giving us the meeting space virtually free, but there are a lot of logistical questions, such as lunch. There is a hotel nearby. If this is not feasible, we will look at going to Chicago. Dr. Rob Silzer has put a lot of work into this. He proposed himself and Allan Church as co-chairs. This is outside of our normal procedure. He also proposed the topic, which would be high-potentials. This is not in our normal procedures, but it might not be bad. Silzer was involved in the first LEC, which was a success. There was further discussion of whether or not the procedure for choosing a chair and topic should be followed. There was general agreement that we should continue to follow the process. Mr. Nershi noted that we do need to act quickly if we want to be in NYC because the availability is fleeting. Dr. Lundquist also noted that Brooklyn is not the place people think of when they consider going to NYC. There was discussion of whether or not the event would ever be held on the west coast. Then it could involve Silicon Valley. Dr. Hakel explained that the past two years we have announced the HRM Impact Award winners at the LEC. Northshore Jewish Health Systems from two years ago might be appropriate. All of these organizations have created evidence-based practices and are deserving of some more recognition on the program.

National Registry of I-O Wellbeing Consultants. Dr. Banks distributed a proposal to establish a national registry within SIOP. A few meetings ago she became aware of the value of putting together a registry within SIOP of people who have a common interest. This proposal discusses how to establish this type of registry. Mr. Nershi explained that the new Consultant Locator program could be adapted fill this need. Mr. Nershi estimated that this would be about $5,000 of extra programming work. It is an opt-in process and anyone can sign up. If you want to be part of that group, you have to establish your own credentials within it. We would establish criteria for how to establish your subject-matter expertise, such as curriculum vitae. This would be visible externally. We could give Lewis-Burke a list of people who are interested in this topic area, for example. We can have a number of databases. Mr. Nershi noted that we have something similar now, Media Resources, which is set up in a similar way. Dr. Kozlowski explained that we have had discussion of this in the past regarding advocacy and having an easy way to find experts. Dr. Knapp noted a few reservations: it will be difficult to keep current and ensure that the experts we desire are actually in it. Interest can fade in things like this. We need to ensure it lives in a dynamic way. Mr. Nershi explained that this is also similar to Consultant Locator. We have been able to get a lot of people on this by saying we will promote your services. We can’t force people to do it. We do use some of the information from members’ SIOP records, so we can rely on some of that to be complete. Dr. Banks explained that whoever is putting this registry together will communicate the purpose for it. Many of these similar programs are not vetted at all. Mr. Nershi explained that we would write a disclaimer. Dr. Outtz explained that he thinks that goes against the idea of calling the people on the registry an “expert.” Most experts have enough business and do not need to be on a registry. Dr. Banks explained that she is putting this together for the external purposes. SIOP members are all experts. Dr. Tannenbaum asked whether this was an expertise locator or an interest locator. There were friendly amendments to remove the words “national” and “expert” from the proposed name. Dr. Banks accepted the amendments. Dr. Kozlowski motioned to approve an expenditure of up to $5,000 to create a registry platform. Dr. Cortina seconded. Mr. Nershi said this will not be hard costs, as the work can be done internally. There was discussion of consolidating the registries with Media Resources, Consultant Locator, etc. onto one platform. There was discussion of establishing criteria for the Board to vote on whether to launch a new registry. Dr. Banks asked for approval from the board to move forward on this. There was general agreement that the board approved of this initiative. There was a request to gather analytics on Consultant Locator. We will be able to find $5,000 within the Administrative Office budget for this project.  Dr. Oswald made a motion that SIOP fund up to $5,000 to establish international registries starting with the well-being registry. Dr. Heggestad seconded. Dr. Banks abstained. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the development of online international registries of SIOP members, beginning with a well-being registry, to be funded from the SIOP Administrative office budget.

OTHER MATTERS

HRPS White Paper Proposal. Dr. Alonzo explained that HRPS (HR People & Strategy) is hoping that SIOP can do a similar white paper series with HRPS as the one we have with SHRM. We were trying to figure out what the overlap might be between SIOP members and HRPS members. It is less than 10%. We want to make a proposal to HRPS that is broader than this white paper series. We are having an exploratory conversation with the HRPS director. Is there any programming they can set aside at their conference for SIOP members or white paper authors? There is no action for the board at this time. We will bring our findings back to the board. Dr. Banks explained that Edie Goldberg has wanted to strengthen relations for years between HRPS and SIOP, but our conferences often overlap.

APA Center for Organizational Excellence. Dr. Banks explained that at the last meeting the board tasked her to speak with APA and Center for Organizational Excellence leaders to talk about having a SIOP advisory group with them to infuse I-O into their expertise. They are excited to do this and want to have a person that speaks for SIOP. They tap I-O people thinking they are talking to someone that represents SIOP and it turns out not to be. They would like a long-standing group to advise them on I-O issues. Right now they are frustrated that they do not have a party to work with. Dr. Banks will accept nominations for who will be on that advisory group. The conversation will be mutually initiated.  President Cortina said he would be concerned that we would be wasting the time of SIOP members. Dr. Banks said they have a hard time finding members to talk to. We have an Administrative Office that they can call. We have council reps, etc. Dr. Lowman asked what a request would entail. Dr. Banks said it might be something like suggesting speakers for open spots in an upcoming conference. Dr. Lowman asked if this could be worked on by a current committee. Dr. Banks said she would like them to have APA experience. Dr. Allen noted that in previous discussions we thought APA reps would be good connectors. There was discussion of others who might be good at this job. President Cortina emphasized that we would want “bread and butter” I-O experts with a broad coverage of expertise in the group. Dr. Allen agreed that we should have a good cross-section of expertise.
President Cortina will appoint an advisory board.

President Cortina noted that Drs. Lundquist, Church and Heggestad will be cycling off the board. He thanked them for their service. There were final wrap-up discussions. Dr. Alonzo moved to adjourn. Dr. Oswald seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 2:46 pm.