OPEG Meeting Minutes

Minutes for meeting of OPEG Board of Trustees 12-5-08 Conference Call

Rob Fischer, Karen Shaner, Jan Upton, Shon Bunkley, Rachel Holbert, and Chip Partridge. Absent: Nancy Hood, Julianne Manchester, Shiloh Turner and Marsha Zabecki.

Review of Minutes - Jan Upton: Only change to September minutes was a note that Karen had submitted updated budget documents for review at the 12/5/08 meeting. The minutes were approved with this change.

Treasurer's Report - Karen Shaner:

Review of 2008-2009 Proposed Budget - Karen submitted a revised budget with reduced expected attendance from 200 to 180, which reduces revenue from conference fees to $13,500.00 (based on 180@$75). Expected revenue from membership fees is $4,200 (based on 140@$30). We received $5,700 in membership fees last year, so this may be too conservative. Nancy mentioned to Rob that we should consider reducing the conference fee given the current economy. The consensus was that having a sliding scale would be complicated and probably not make a huge difference for most people. There was a motion to establish a student rate for conferences. The Program Committee should review and recommend a student conference rate, which we could have in force for the Spring Exchange. One question was how can we verify that a person is a student. Some organizations require a photocopy of student id with the registration form. A line can be added to the registration form to specify where the individual is a student (university and department). Currently, there are only a few students taking part in conferences (only four this past year took advantage of the student membership fee), so the impact on our budget should not be huge. [FOLLOW-UP: Program Committee (Nancy) should review student conference fee and recommend a rate.]

Karen reorganized the 2008-2009 proposed budget, splitting out the Fall Workshop and Spring Exchange events. Rob asked if the Membership Committee line of zero should remain. Karen reported from the September minutes that we decided to keep the line and would fund requests as needed. Under the room costs, the Fall Workshop room costs are low, but the AV costs are high. With the Spring Exchange, these costs are reversed. These are based on the actual costs incurred this past year. Quest discounts the room costs, but the AV costs are high due to service charges.

Rob asked if Karen could separate out CEUs and supplies. Nancy mentioned at the September meeting that it would be helpful to have the total for each event (Fall and Spring) as well as the itemized costs. Rob recommended that Fall and Spring be put into separate boxes on the spreadsheet. In Other Expenses, Karen is going to remove an old note about "Mailing statements, etc." on "Awards." [FOLLOW-UP: Karen will prepare a revised 2008-2009 budget with changes as recommended.] There may need to be an adjustment on projected revenue once the student fee is determined. However, no major changes are expected. The 2008-2009 budget was approved.

Review of November Financial Statement - The year-to-date revenue is $7,733.69 (through November 30th). Year-to-date expenses are $1,266.52, so our net is $6,467.17. Karen is going to revise the financial statement to be consistent with the changes she is going to make to the 2008-2009 budget, specifically the organization of the Fall Workshop and Spring Exchange breakdown. We received the Quest invoice at the end of November, but those expenses will not be reflected until the December statement. Karen verified that she put the $90 for Renee Belbeck in administrative services and that the nametag holders should stay in Program Committee supply category.

Karen corrected the beginning balance on the August statement. The November beginning balance is $19,868.58. The checking balance is $19,468.72 and the CD is $7,409.29 for a total of $26,878.01. The November statement does not include the Quest invoice.

Consequently, Karen provided an update on the Fall Workshop, which incorporates the Quest expenses, in a separate document. The food was the largest expense ($2,222.60), followed by the AV ($1,285.00), and service fees ($1,006.68). The service fees were higher than budgeted (126%). OPEG is classified as a 501-C6, like a business association, so we are subject to state taxes. We had a discussion a few years ago about whether OPEG should pursue 501-C3 status as part of pursuing grant money. We were not aware at that time about the state tax issue. Rob asked for clarification on the service fee, as we are not sure how this is comparable to Fawcett Center fees. [FOLLOW-UP: Karen said she would ask Randy for a prior Fawcett invoice so that she can make better comparisons.]

We had 85 registered for the Fall Workshop. Five have yet to pay, three did not attend, and a refund was sent to one non-attendee. Our policy has been not to refund the fee unless there were extenuating circumstances and a request was made. Nancy recommended to Karen that we need to develop a more formal refund policy. Rachel noted that once things are more automated, this information can be more readily posted for people to see as they register. [FOLLOW-UP: Program Committee (Nancy) should review development of a more formal refund policy.]

Program Committee Report - Nancy Hood:

Fall Workshop (November 14, 2008) - Feedback was generally positive. People had difficulty choosing which sessions to attend. They learned a lot and enjoyed the networking. However, there were logistical problems. Too much time was scheduled for lunch. There was not a large enough room for all of us to meet. There was lack of clarity about the availability of handouts. There were complaints that sessions were too hard or too easy. Presenters had too much content or not enough. There many comments about the desire for online registration. As usual, there attendees are highly diverse. We can detect some themes, but they go in several different directions. Quest does not have a room large enough for all of us to meet at same time, which will not work for the Spring Exchange.

We need to continue to think through the best way that we can meet the needs of a diverse audience. It is almost impossible to address the needs of everyone, as the audience comes from both ends of the spectrum. Rachel noted that to some extent this is a Membership Committee issue. Once more things are online and we can come up with a way to determine where our members are in terms of beginner, intermediate, and advanced, then we can begin to hone our offerings. Shon pointed out that people do not always know which category they belong. Nonetheless, the more we know about our membership, the better we can address their needs. It is important for us to ask precise questions in member surveys. We have been doing this with open-ended response questions. We may want to think about prompting them in survey questions so that we can get a clearer understanding of members' needs. We get a lot of "need to learn about surveys." At a minimum, we need to address the complaints about logistical problems.

Spring Exchange (May 15, 2009) - It will be at the Fawcett Center. The Program Committee has an upcoming meeting. Early thoughts about themes are: cultural competency in evaluation or technology in evaluation. We would like to bring in a big name speaker, so recommendations are encouraged. Rob mentioned Dr. Rodney Hopson (Assistant Professor of Education at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh), who is known for his work on cultural competency in evaluation. The Program Committee may want to contact him.

Another issue that Nancy noted needs review is our marketing. Upon speaking with people at the conference, only about 17 heard about the Fall Workshop from the OPEG mailing (we sent out about 700). Maybe this is not enough of a yield to continue this expense. Invariably, we say we are going to switch to e-mail only, and then someone says, "Well, if it results in a few people attending, we should do it." Until this Fall Workshop, U.S. mail was the way most people said they learned about OPEG meetings. This time, it was the least mentioned way. For example, it doesn't make sense for the mailing to go to Board members. Another thing to consider is that in the more rural areas, there may be less online access and/or use. We would run the risk of excluding these people. Another possibility is that people learn about the events online, but the mailer is a useful reminder. The e-mail reminder does this as well. One possibility is to target by zip code, but this may be complicated, but we could look at targeting mailing to rural areas. There are 21 urban school districts, so we could possibly use those as a guide in determining areas to omit from the mailing.

We should also target university departments/programs that specialize in evaluation. We need to identify these and mail a single event packet that we ask them to post. Board members and other volunteers need to be assigned to these departments/programs for ongoing personal follow-up to make them aware of OPEG and encourage their participation in events.

Rob recommended that we restrict hard copy mailing list to members/attendees from the last two years. We also should give members the option to opt out of hard copy mailing and to receive e-mail only. Chip is going to add a question about e-mail or hard copy preference on the membership information survey form. He can add this to the e-mail note that he sends to members and encourage them to update their information.

Membership Committee Report - Rachel Holbert and Shon Bunkley:

Shon sent Board members a summary of the Membership Committee's December 4th meeting. She provided updates on the following tasks:

Annual Operations Plan - Considering all the proposed changes to the web site, the Membership Committee recommended holding off on creating an operations plan until we know what it is going to happen with the web site and its available functions.

Membership Survey - Rachel has collected membership lists from Jan, Karen, and Chip. She is compiling what we have from everyone as part of developing a distribution list for the Membership Survey. We may want to open up the Membership Survey to former members. We need information about what they view as OPEG benefits as well as what they would like to see as additional benefits that would pique their interests. Chip described plans to develop an Annual OPEG survey that would use skip logic to give different questions to members and non-members. The plan is for the survey would to be disseminated by early February and to be closed by the third week of February. The Membership Committee would report findings to the Board by late March. Everything would be online. We also plan to include demographic questions (race, ethnicity, and age range) as part of developing the membership profile. This type of information will also help us target recruitment. Chip is going to send the Board the link to the draft so that we can review. The Membership Committee views the survey as an essential first step in determining their plans for the future.

Rob raised a question about timing in conjunction with the Call for Papers for the Spring Exchange and membership renewal in January. Last year, the e-mail for this went out on 1/20/08. There was discussion about whether we should do these things together. Since the Annual Survey is for members and non-members, Rob agreed that the different timing made sense. Rob is going to prepare the membership renewal letter. [FOLLOW-UP: Rob needs to update the membership renewal letter.]

Web site development/enhancement proposal - Chip: Chip has asked for a revised proposal in lay language that explains the benefits of an updated web site. He should receive that within the next two weeks and will then distribute to the Board. [FOLLOW-UP: Chip needs to send revised web site proposal to the Board.]

Other Business

Elections - Jan posted the Elections and Awards form on the web page. Marsha Zabecki is stepping down from the board, which leaves 6-months on her At-Large position, so we can appoint someone. Nancy is not going to run again for Vice-President, so we need someone in that position who will take responsibility for the Program Committee. Shiloh Turner is also in an At-Large position. The positions that will open in 2009 are President, Vice-President, and two At-Large positions. There was discussion about members who might be able to serve. Chip will talk to Jerry Bean and Jan will talk to Susan English about serving in the open At-Large positions. Rob encouraged others on the Board to consider running for the President and Vice-President positions. [UPDATE: Jerry Bean and Susan English have agreed to fill the two At-Large openings through May.]

Bylaws - Chip will send the bylaws edits to Rob who will review. [FOLLOW-UP: Chip needs to send bylaws edits to Rob.]

Next Meeting: Friday, February 13th at 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. conference call.

Summary of Needed Follow-up: 1) Program Committee (Nancy) - a. Should review student conference fee and recommend a rate to the Board. b. Should review development of a more formal refund policy. 2) Karen - a. Will prepare a revised 2008-2009 budget with changes as recommended. b. Will ask Randy for a prior Fawcett invoice. 3) Rob needs to update the membership renewal letter. 4) Chip - a. Needs to send revised web site proposal to the Board. b. Needs to send bylaws edits to Rob.

Submitted by: Jan Upton