OPEG Meeting Minutes

Minutes for meeting of OPEG Board of Trustees 12-10-07 Conference Call

Rob Fischer, Nancy Hood, Randy Leite, Jan Upton, Debbie Crawford, Rick George, Turner Handley, Chip Partridge, Shiloh Turner and Marsha Zabecki

Review of Minutes: Nancy pointed out need for minor correction to the Membership Committee section. October minutes were approved as amended.

Treasurer's Report - Randy Leite: Randy e-mailed the Board three items in advance of the meeting: the December 2007 budget update, the Fall Workshop revenue and expenses, and a five- year financial historical summary. Total income year-to-date is $8,561.13 and expenses are $7,079.53, resulting in a profit of $1,481.60. We are a little ahead of where we were last year at this time. The Fall Workshop revenue was $10,004.00 ($1,396 is outstanding and has been invoiced). We ended up with 91 attendees, which are about 10 participants more than last year. The total expenses were $6,715.78. With the membership dues, the net profit was $3,288.22. Counting workshop fees only, the net profit was $542.22. The membership dues included new as well as members that renewed their memberships.

Randy did a five-year financial summary. Helpful to see budget trends over time. Membership was much lower in FY2003. In looking at FY2007 (ended August 30, 2007) compared to FY2006, we dropped off a little bit in terms of membership. Our numbers, however, were higher with the Fall Workshop 2007. [See further discussion in Membership section.] One interesting trend is that room costs went up and food costs went down. We used to get some free rooms, which was tied to the food order. We no longer get any rooms free.

Program Committee Report - Nancy Hood: Program Committee met last week (December 5). We discussed Fall Workshop survey results [Chip sent out link to Board members during the meeting] and planned for upcoming Spring Exchange. The Fall Workshop topic seemed to be salient for people. We had stronger attendance than in past and people stayed until the end. Most found the content useful. Some respondents indicated they were not thrilled with the keynote's demeanor, content not quite what they expected, and handouts not as thorough as expected. If we do any type of training on technology in future (would be more appropriate for a Fall Workshop), we should consider using a facility with a computer lab.

In the future, we need to do more screening of keynote, preferably select presenters that one of us has seen, so that we can verify the person would be a good fit with the group. We may want to reconsider using keynote all day. Nancy has already begun working on list of things for keynote speakers up front (e.g., exact match of handouts with presentation). The Program Committee has already drafted guidelines for breakout presenters. Discussion of microphone problems. [FOLLOW-UP: Program Committee will further explore microphone options.]

Book selling issue. OPEG agreed to handle sales of keynote's book. At the end of the day, we were two books short. OPEG will pay for the missing books (total cost is $110). Program Committee's recommendation is that OPEG make a policy that we not be responsible for selling anything for anyone in the future and that we are not responsible for lost property. In the past, we have put the raffle books out for people to look at, but those are donations, so if something goes missing, it is not that big of an issue. In the future, if the keynote does not present all day, he/she would have time to sell/sign books (preferably during the break). [UPDATE: Chip later found the books and they were returned to the keynote.]

Program Committee has begun work on the Spring Exchange. Chip and Shiloh are working on the theme. The Committee will decide on the final theme in January. We will then need to get the Call for Proposals out quickly. The presentation submission deadline was March 1 last year. We would like to develop theme that members have recommended but also one that has wide appeal. We will plan Exchange around theme, as this worked well last year. The other major consideration is the keynote speaker. What expertise is needed? Is there someone available locally? Jan explored on-line registration and costs associated with accepting credit cards. She forwarded the cost estimate to the Program Committee. We are exploring alternatives for CEUs (e.g., Ashland), as there was concern that the meetings might have difficulty with getting approval as Social Work CEUs at Case Western in the future. We can explore other options, but if those do not work out, we can still apply to Case Western.

What are we doing with the feedback received from the luncheon discussion? Jan forwarded written feedback from Jim Healy. We have already made many of the recommended changes to the web page. We also asked similar questions in the survey. Chip will also add a question asking specifically about the luncheon networking on the Spring Exchange survey. Other requests included providing members with the Membership Directory. [UPDATE: This has been added to the web page.] The luncheon networking went well. Board agreed that it should not be too formal. Having set questions are helpful for some tables, especially those with new members, but if members are interacting, questions do not have to be used. Having table placards are also helpful, as they help members (especially newer ones) associate the name of board members with the actual individuals. One request was to have more networking around specific topic areas (e.g., mental health, education, and criminal justice). [UPDATE: Spring Exchange luncheon will experiment with this idea.] One table also asked if we had ever done an Evaluation Basics workshop. We did this in 2004. It would also be helpful if we could post past conference themes on the web page. [UPDATE: Jan has drafted a list of past themes and keynotes, which she will post on-line. She will also post available presentation materials onto the "Members Only" web page and will note this on the themes list. We also updated the user and password codes.]

Membership Committee Report - Debbie Crawford: We are getting members at workshops in which they have an interest. A third of the membership continues to be new. Not clear why. Discussion about member turnover. There is also a lot of turnover in evaluation. Part of it may that we are still getting people from the same agencies, but we get new members as previous members move to another job. It would helpful if we could do some kind of follow-up with people who do NOT renew their membership to find out why they left. Possibly add question to the Annual Survey. In addition, with new members, we ask how they learned about the meeting, but we may need to ask if they are completely new to evaluation. It seems likes the majority of our membership dues come in with a meeting registration. Therefore, people appear to join as a result of interest in a particular meeting. Strictly speaking there is not a financial benefit to membership. Some only renew their membership when they see a meeting topic that appeals to them. One thing that may have an impact on this is that we are adding more services to the web page (e.g., members only are listed in the Consultant Directory and have access to the presentation materials/resources). [Discussion returned to the Treasurer's Report above.] Three members have volunteered to assist Debbie with the Membership Committee (Rachel Holbert, and Barbara Gunning). Debbie will contact them after the first of the year. Having a committee to focus on the benefits of membership will be helpful.

Have we talked to other affiliates about this issue? There is an Affiliates Topical Interest Group (TIG) that meets at AEA. Rob has participated in this, and it is mostly focused on getting new affiliates off the ground. We have periodically talked with the 3-4 affiliates that are as old as us, such as Michigan, about co-sponsoring a conference, but given the complications of doing it within state, the logistics are overwhelming. We get questions from other affiliates about how we survived this long (25 years). They think we are amazing in terms of longevity, but we've had some near misses in terms of this organization surviving over time.

With respect to question of whether or not Fall Workshop and Spring Exchange attendees are different, it is a mixed bag. With the Spring Exchange, it seems that more colleagues attend to provide support. With the Fall Workshop, the focus is more on the keynote and learning a skill. More people are realizing that the rubric of "evaluation" is huge. Board members also regularly send the meeting information to colleagues (often non-members) who might have an interest.

Other Business:

Updating of Board Binder Materials - Rob Fischer

Rob needs to send a binder to Tucker [FOLLOW-UP]. Chip needs to send out review of policies to Board prior to upcoming meeting [FOLLOW-UP]. [REFERENCE from 8/10/07 Meeting: The next step will be to proceed with approving the recommendations that only require Board approval. For changing code and regulations, we will need two-thirds majority of the votes cast by the membership. We can time this in conjunction with the Spring Exchange (May 16, 2008).]

Awards Chair Replacement- Rob Fischer

Kelly Burgess was responsible for this. Rick volunteered to take this on. He will be the person to receive the nominations. [FOLLOW-UP: Need to review whether or not request for nominees went out with Call for Papers.] [UPDATE: Last year, this mailed out with Spring Exchange announcement, sent to members via e-mail, and was posted on-line.]

Newsletter - Rick George

We were also looking at the newsletter as another point of contact with members. New target date is January. Tucker volunteered to help. [UPDATE: Newsletter had not come out as of 2/12/08.]

Next Meeting: Friday, February 15, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., conference call.

Summary of Needed Follow-up:

1) Program Committee will further explore microphone options.

2) Rob needs to send a binder to Tucker.

3) Chip needs to send out review of policies to Board prior to upcoming meeting.

Submitted by: Jan Upton