Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
Noon March 13 2008 Hancock Room Boston Park Plaza Hotel
1. 12:30 PM Call to Order
Sternberg: I would like to take a limited amount of time on routine matters so that we can discuss important issues.
2 The new officers were announced and those present were introduced. Then the election report was discussed.
Hineline: This year’s election raised the issue of what to do about ties in number of nominations and ties in number of votes in elections.
Miller: In the case of nominations there have been numerous ties, which have been resolved by the election committee. I propose that we continue this practice.
Lewis: In the case of a tie in an election, the Board of Directors should break the tie.
Jalbert: We could consider the number of nominations.
Zentall: I agree that the Board of Directors should break the tie.
Delamater: If one of the candidates had run before, we could give it to that candidate. Or, we might hold a new election.
Jalbert: In the final extremity, we could flip a coin.
After some proposals were withdrawn, three proposals were voted on.
The proposal that the Board of Directors decide tie elections received 10 votes.
The proposal that there be a second election received one vote.
The proposal that the person with the greater number of nominations be elected received one vote.
Hence, the proposal that the Board of Directors decide tie elections was adopted.
3. Discussion of Program Committee’s Report
Hineline: We might someday be able to sell the submission software that we are developing.
Hineline: Can you get the printed program out earlier next year?
Beins: Since the program is available on the internet, should we just have the printed program available at the meeting?
Miller: The internet program is not that easy to manipulate. We should mail the program in advance of the meeting.
Zentall: The program should be available a month early.
Sternberg: The online program should be an easily downloaded .pdf.
Allan: In advance of the program a flyer or poster would be useful to advertise the meeting.
Glass: We are making an effort in this direction.
4. Discussion of Treasurer’s Report
Jalbert: We should have liability insurance for the Board. I would also like up to $2500 to obtain advice on the investment accounts. For better clarity and accounting purposes, I would like to designate the purpose of each EPA investment account.
Sternberg: What is the financial health of EPA?
Jalbert: Good! In fact, the projected budget deficit may not come to pass.
Sternberg: Thank you, Norine, for doing the EPA tax return.
Proposal to obtain Director’s liability insurance: Passed Unanimously.
Proposal to allocate up to $2500 for financial consulting: Passed Unanimously.
Proposal to designate the Vanguard and Wachovia money market accounts as part of Operating Funds, the Vanguard GNMA account as the EPA Reserve Fund, the Vanguard ST Treasury account as the Foundation Fund and to also transfer $5500.00 from operating funds to the newly designated Foundation Fund: Passed unanimously.
5. Discussion of Executive Officer’s Report
Reorganization of program around cross-area interest groups.
Newcombe: One purpose of a regional meeting is to meet people.
Zetall: It wouldn’t take money to form interest groups if we would the right individuals to form them.
Newcombe: Yes, there is a need for groups that study problems like spatial navigation rather than populations like infants or mice.
Ghirardelli: We must not alienate the undergraduate students.
Hineline: We could make use of the Meet and Greet Thursday night for the students to meet the speakers.
Beins: EPA liaisons could reach out to new PhDs. Ralph Miller pointed out 50 years ago that there are good people at small schools.
Sternberg: Should we keep the groups regional?
Glass: I think that we should invite regionally but permit anyone to join.
Newcombe: I think that we should use our money to get this going.
Sternberg: I think that it is a good idea. The biggest challenge is that there are two many meetings. People tend to go first to the specialized meetings. If we create cross-area interest groups then we won’t compete as much.
Lewis: I think that we should build on our strengths. We must select where to invest. How do we identify opportunities?
Delamater: We should continue the President’s integrative symposium. Byron Nelson has done a great job on the integrative symposia.
Newcombe: The Program Committee could offer money to create cross-area interest groups for the next several years.
Sternberg: The next president should pursue this.
Adjournment until 2:45 to have coffee with officers of International Psychologists.
Salzinger: We could add debates to the program.
Jalbert: We had debate two years ago on whether stereotypes are good or bad that was standing room only. This is a good idea.
Zentall: I like the idea of finding people to organize talks followed by discussion. I like the idea of having people finding successors to keep the groups going.
Lewis: So the purpose of the groups is not to add to the program on a one-shot basis but use it as a vehicle to create continuing interest groups on topics that would be integrated into the program.
Zentall: How about each President coming up with two people to organize interest groups each year?
Sternberg: There is a disconnect between the President and the Program Committee. This year they were not grateful for my advice, so I backed off. We the need the Program Committee integrated with the President. I think that the President should have more slots to fill. I propose that the President have five invited speaker slots to fill in addition to the Presidential address and Presidential Symposium.
Newcombe: Can we support more speakers?
Miller: Would this create a competition between different invited speakers speaking at the same time?
Jalbert: That would be difficult to avoid.
Newcombe: We are not going to have that much competition if we schedule speakers in diverse areas against each other.
Ghiradelli: Will President’s speakers be used to cultivate interest groups?
Sternberg: They have several purposes. The President’s influence will attract more high-powered researchers who will increase general attendance and also attract other researchers to the interest group. I think we should leave the details of this to the President.
Cook: I think that we should change the wording of the proposal to up-to-five speakers selected by the President.
Sternberg: I accept that friendly amendment.
Delamater. I have another idea. I think that we should add program committee members in hot research areas such as cognitive neuroscience.
Outreach to graduate students
Sternberg: We lack a well-defined pipeline. We need to get graduate students involved in the organization.
Newcombe: I think that is a great idea!
Glass: It would also be good to reach out to new faculty.
Sternberg: We could call the group EPA Graduate Students: EPAGS.
Glass: We could use our data base to identify them.
Sternberg: We could give them a role in the meeting so that they have something to put on their vita. We are under-leveraging the graduate students. Once we get the organization set up they can find their own successors.
Hineline: Maybe we could add an EPAGS representative to the Board of Directors.
Newcombe: If the President creates self-sustaining interest groups the president is using the resources of subsequent presidents.
Sternberg: That would only be true if the success rate were high. If every President created one self-sustaining interest group, my guess is that 10 years from now maybe 3 would still be in existence.
The proposal that the President should have 5 speaker slots to fill in the program was passed unanimously.
The proposal to create EPAGs was passed unanimously.
Newcombe promised to report to the Board on progress in creating self-sustaining interest groups to contribute to the program.
Initial organization of Fellows Committee
Sternberg: I think that the President can take responsibility for creating the Fellows Committee. I will work with Nora to get this going by June 1.
Hineline: I didn’t get the email inviting me to join.
Glass: My mistake. I should have realized that emails would not get through to all individuals and I should have followed up when so many people did not respond. I will send letters to everyone who did not respond to the email.
Miller: I suggest that that letter go out over the signature of the President of EPA.
Sternberg: Okay, it can go out over the EO’s signature also.
6. Old Business
The issue of the criterion for EPA membership was put off for the future.
The projected EPA budget for 2008-2009 was passed unanimously.
7. There was no new business.
8. Next year’s Board meeting will be noon, Thursday March 5 2009.
9. The Executive Officer was considered to have done an adequate job. If he informs the Board in the near future of his decision not to continue past the end of his 5 year term, a search for a new EO will begin.
10. Adjournment (about 4 PM)