OPEG Meeting Minutes

Minutes for meeting of OPEG Board of Trustees 12-1-06 Conference Call

Present: Rob Fischer, Jan Upton, Rick George, Chip Partridge, Kelly Burgess, and Nancy Hood.

Review of Minutes: No one in attendance had changes to the September 21 meeting minutes.

Program Committee Report: Marsha was not able to make the meeting due to illness.

Fall Workshop Survey Results

Members reviewed the Fall Workshop survey results. Overall, responses were positive, but we discussed things that jumped out at us upon our review. Despite the overwhelming positive tone, we were still struck by the varying needs of different members. For example, some said things were good, but others said the same thing could be improved. It's a diverse audience. We probably did as well as we could for the most part. It's a very tough audience because everyone comes in with so many different needs. We learned, for example, that people wanted more discussion of internal evaluation. Some issues apply differently to internal evaluators, and these were not really discussed. The other lesson related to this is the need to educate speakers about the audience. We informed speakers about the different disciplines, but it is also important to emphasize that we also have both internal and external evaluators. We may also want to ask presenters to make a point of covering each group in their presentations. It would also be a good idea to put together formal guidelines for presenters. Nancy forwarded the comments to Michael Morris.

It seemed like participants overall found the opening session useful. They also appeared to value the case study discussions. We can again use case studies as a technique in the future. Only one person mentioned that the starting time was too early. We think that the time adjustment helped. However, since attendance was lower, the starting time could still have been a factor. Other reasons behind the lower attendance was the date—there was a conflict with the AEA conference and the election. Another problem may have been the conference title. "Ethics in evaluation" may have been perceived as boring. Perhaps we should have used words like "Professionalism" and "Accountability" rather than "Ethics." Our attendance of 80 was more typical. We met our projection. Last year, because the session dealt with mental health, Marsha did a lot of one-on-one promotion. Two years ago, we did a session on evaluation basics, which got a higher than average response. There were also a few comments asking for a more basic session. We could ask upfront about pre-registration for another basic session. Another request related to this is to do something more regional for a half a day. However, it is not cost effective to do regional activities. Another possibility is to do some of the training on-line (e.g. Webex). Tom Archer is highly familiar with on-line training and could possibly be a resource for us. Another possibility is to encourage regional activities along the lines of a brown bag luncheon. Facilitating local networks is a good idea, though we don't want to end up with five splinter groups, as we are stronger statewide. There could be regional/local social/educational events. We need to grow the outlying areas.

We discussed ways we could improve the last panel. The end of the day is always difficult. People are tired and some people had already left. By the time we got to the final panel, we had already talked about the "Grey Areas" all day. It would have been better to have the last session focused on action steps—things that could be done next and pieces that everyone can take and apply to their practices. That didn't really fit with the "grey areas" and had only been a small part of what we had planned to talk about. Actionable items are a good idea for future workshops. Bringing people back at the end of the day to discuss what we can do with what we learned was viewed by the group as worthwhile. It would also be a good idea for the people who are going to be on any panel together to have an opportunity prior to the workshop to have some communication about what should be covered. We could also add in some networking to the last panel such as having participants turn to their neighbor and talk briefly about what they will take from the day. We could then have either a large group discussion or a panel. Another idea is to give people an opportunity to write questions and put them in a box—sort of a Q&A. This could be done with just two people—the keynote and a panel coordinator. In addition, the panel coordinator could plan 4-5 questions in advance. Rob cautioned, however, that for CEU purposes, this session needs to have someone presenting information or we will lose that CEU time. This workshop was also a little unique in the extent to which we depended on the keynote. Another idea is to just encourage questions that are more general rather than them just being for the keynote. If the question has already been addressed during the course of the workshop, the presenter could do a brief summary. Others could also ask additional related questions during this time. We could place a "Questions" box on the registration table and give people opportunities to add questions throughout the day. We don't have to decide now, but this is something we can discuss further in the next Program Committee meeting. The topic is 80 percent of the game and this was an excellent selection. It was well done and engaging.

Spring Exchange Ideas

The group briefly discussed the ideas for the Spring Exchange ideas that were added to the survey, "Visual Display of Quantitative Data" and "Using Technology in Evaluation." We need to discuss the results more thoroughly at the next Program Committee meeting. "Visual Display" may be best as a workshop. "Using Technology," however, should work fine for a Spring Exchange topic. We may also want to put this in as a "track." We typically get a minimum number of submissions by the deadline, and then we go out and ask people to submit. "Graphically Presenting Data" is another possible topic. However, we may want to be careful with the name so that it is not perceived as a workshop on how to use PowerPoints. It would be good to integrate the presentation piece with the use of technology. Another possible topic area we could include is the use of free statistical software (e.g., the R project). There was some discussion about the ethics of presenting free software. It is very unlikely that any group or agency that is already paying for software will switch to free software. Free software is more of an option for those who can not afford paid options. Chip is going to pull together his research on free software and share with the group. First half of the day could be a couple of parallel sessions on freeware (quantitative, qualitative, and GIS mapping). These could be done by local presenters rather than a keynote. The afternoon could be shorter sessions. This idea should be further discussed at the next Program Committee meeting.

Membership Committee Report: Debbie was not able to attend the meeting due to a conflict. Rob provided an update on plans to send out a renewal to everyone who did not renew their membership at the Fall Workshop. Mailing would include a letter from Rob, save the date for May Exchange, and an OPEG brochure. Last year, we included a call for nominations for elections and awards. Rob will check with Debbie to see if she has materials from last year. By delaying renewal to January, we usually had a call for submissions for May, as by that time, we had the Spring Exchange topics. If we send out renewal in December, we can do save the date only. The call for submissions is now handled mainly via e-mail. One possibility on the renewal is to do it first via e-mail and only send hard copy to those who do not respond. Randy can provide an update on the status of e-mail addresses and Debbie may also have opinion about this. Rob needs to follow-up with Randy and Debbie. On the Fall Workshop Survey, 60 percent indicated learning about the event via direct mail from OPEG. Chip will follow-up with Marsha regarding need to separate direct mail question into two questions—one that covers receipt of announcement via e-mail and the other that covers receipt of announcement via U.S. mail.

Treasurer's Report: Randy was not able to attend the meeting due to a conflict. We need to confirm the proposed budget. Rob will follow-up with Randy. He will then distribute via e-mail for a board vote. It appears that the $870 of expected Fall Workshop revenue is still outstanding (specified on Workshop Financial Report) and was not counted on the overall budget. The expenditures for CEUs were handled similarly. We calculated attendance based on 80 participants and appear to have broken even on the Fall Workshop. We will have the final numbers in January.

Other Business:

Planning for 2007 Elections – Four board members (Rob, Marsha, Rick, and Nancy) have terms that are expiring. We certainly want to encourage people to run for board positions and would like to increase the board's diversity.

Planning for 2007 Awards – We also want people to begin thinking of possible nominees for awards. It is always much better if we are thinking in advance of people who should receive recognition for service to the association. For the Evaluator of the Year, it is good to recognize them for a particularly notable study that was completed recently or cumulative contributions to evaluation in Ohio. For the past couple of years, we have given two Evaluator of the Year awards. There are two awards specified in the by laws.

Newsletter – Rick said he would have something to look at by the February meeting. He has information on Mike Morris that he is going to write up. It would be a good idea for Rob, as President, to add something. Rob is going to send Rick a write-up by January 10. Nancy will check again with her husband about the design. Rick is going to send out ideas and deadlines. Rob asked Nancy to write up something about her attendance at the AEA meeting

OPEG Web Page – Jan will follow-up with Debbie about photos taken at the Fall Workshop. Jan will also post notice about the upcoming May 18^th Spring Exchange. She will also write brief descriptions for Fall Workshop photos.

Next meeting: February 16 , 2007 (Friday) at 10:00 a.m. at Maryhaven.

Summary of Needed Follow-up:

• Rob will let Jan know whether any members not in attendance have objections to the minutes being posted on the web page
• Rob will check with Debbie to see if she has renewal materials from last year.
• Rob needs to follow-up with Randy and Debbie concerning use of e-mail for initial renewal contact.
• Chip is going to pull together his research on free software and share with the group.
• Chip will follow-up with Marsha regarding need to separate direct mail survey question into two questions—one that covers receipt of announcement via e-mail and the other that covers receipt of announcement via U.S. mail.
• Jan needs to do updates to web page:
  • Nancy Hood appointment – Need photo and background information.
  • Fall Workshop
    • Mike Morris' handouts. Nancy verified after the meeting that it was fine to post the handouts with specific documentation.
    • Follow-up with Debbie regarding photos. Add text to describe photos.
    • Collect all breakout materials and post on web page.
  • Post preliminary info about upcoming May 18 Spring Exchange.
• Newsletter
  • Rick is going to send out ideas and deadlines.
  • Rob is going to send Rick a write-up by January 10.
  • Nancy will check again with her husband about the design.
  • Nancy is going to write about the AEA meeting.

Outstanding Needed Follow-up from 9/21/06 Meeting:

On-line membership database – Need additional information from Chip on data elements that need to be included. We also need to further discuss the process with Randal (the webmaster).

Submitted by: Jan Upton