SRP Board Meeting
Sunday October 15th 2006
1. Final updates from local host and program chair
Eric Granholm estimated that we had 259 registrations, which made this meeting the largest SRP meeting to date. Eric Granholm stated that we would come in at the high $48,000 or low $49,000 range. Some savings were possible because the AV people are directly billing the society rather than going through the hotel. With the registrations and the grants, we may be $5-10 K in the black.
2. Publication Committee
Keith Nuechterlein received three volunteers for the Publication Committee: Craig Neumann, Jason Shiffman and Deborah Walder. The board discussed the fact that is might be good to have a board member who also sits on this committee. Michael Green volunteered to be that person. Michael Green and Keith Nuechterlein suggested that it might be helpful to have a printed membership directory. We discussed determining whether we could output the addresses and phone number of members to an electronic document that could be downloadable from the website. Lee Anna suggested that we make it a more multi purpose document that might include information on people’s interests and that a query function be added to allow convenient sorting. It would also help if the list could include membership status.
3. Website
Junghee Lee agreed to become the new member of the website committee, given that Kenneth Subotnik is rotating off the committee. It was suggested that the abstract submission portal collect information on whether person was a full member or an associate member so that this could be used to check appropriateness of the abstract submission. The board discussed ways to get the membership to post to the resources page, as the success of this section of the website will depend on the motivation of the membership to provide materials. Lee Anna suggested that we do an annual reminder to the membership to input information. Ann Kring suggested that the resource page be more clearly highlighted on the website, such as increasing the font size, or having some notation of this new section. It was decided that questions about posting to the resources page be funneled through the secretary, who would help to address questions. The board agreed to send a reminder to membership to populate the resources part of the website. If this does not generate a large response, we will reevaluate the need for other plans to help populate the resource page. Keith Nuechterlein felt that Angus reported that it would be a major undertaking to redo the website using something like a graduate student, as Aaron had used a number of more sophisticated tools to make the website. It was decided to have the website committee talk to Aaron abut the sustainability of the website should he not be available (e.g., what is the back up plan). If a clear back up plan is not available, then we will revisit the need for a change in the support of the website.
4. Possible Holzman award
After our Board meetings by phone during the last year, Michael Green contacted Debbie Levy about the possibility of changing the Smadar Levin award to be the Holzman/Levin award or the Levin/Holzman award. Debbie Levy spoke to Phil Holzman’s wife, who said that she thought this name change would not sufficiently honor Smadar Levin. The board discussed the issue of whether to pursue other avenues for honoring Phil Holzman. Keith noted that he and other Board members certainly believed that Phil Holzman’s contributions to psychopathology research and SRP were outstanding and deserving of recognition. Keith also noted that our previous phone discussion had included consideration of the issue that we have many outstanding members whom we might wish to memorialize in someway, and that we needed a plan that could handle future events. Although a number of different ideas were discussed at some length, in the end the Board concluded that we should set a policy of not naming any more awards or lectures for members who have passed on. The reason for this is that there are many, many deserving members, and it would be very difficult to define a set of criteria that could be used to determine fairly who should and should not be honored in this way. Ann suggested that we might be able to use the website to honor members who have passed on, an idea that met with a postive response from other Board members. It was also suggested that subgroups could organize their own informal get togethers at SRP meetings to honor members who had died in the prior year. Although these gatherings would not be an official part of the program, but coordinated with the program.
5. Future meeting sites
– 2007 Iowa City, IA (October 4th – 7th, 2007)
– 2008 Pittsburgh, PA
– 2009 Minneapolis, MN
– 2010 ?
– 2011
Bill Kremen said he would be willing to serve as a local host for a future meeting at San Diego. Ithaca was also suggested as a future spot. Nashville and Seattle were also suggested as future sites. Ted Beauchaine is at Seattle and several members are in Nashville. The concern was raised that it might be more difficult and more expensive to travelto Ithaca. Keith noted that it would be a nice choice for the sentiment of the return to Ithaca. The board agreed to gather more information as to the ease and feasibility of getting to Ithaca before making a final decision about holding the 25th annual meeting there (2011). Ann Kring also volunteered to host a meeting in San Francisco again. The general sentiment was to have the 2010 meeting be on the West Coast, with Seattle, San Francisco, and San Diego all being very desirable options. The plan is for Ann Kring to approach Ted Beauchaine. If he is agreeable, then we would do 2010 in Seattle. If he is not willing, then we would do 2010 in San Francisco. A return to San Diego was also viewed as a very desirable option for a later year, with San Francisco favored before it for variety of locations. Vancouver was also suggested as a good place to have a future meeting. We will also talk to Sohee Park about Nashville as a future site. If the information on Ithaca is positive, then it would be for 2011.
6. Remaining topics from Thursday Board and Member’s Business meetings
Program Committee
Keith and Michael met with the members of the current program committee to generate suggestions for next year’s program committee. It was decided to approach Bill Hetrick as the program chair for next year. Keith approached him and he agreed. Scott Sponheim volunteered to be on the program committee for next year to help in translation. Bill Hetrick will then choose the other members of the committee in consultation with Keith and other officers, with attention to covering the major areas. It was suggested that we formalize the process of asking the program chair for a current year to serve on the next year’s committee to help with translation. The board agreed.
Early Career Award
The board discussed the possibility of creating an early career award (not named after a particular person). The concern was raised that we would need clear criteria to ensure that people felt that the selection process was fair. The board discussed ways in which potential candidates might be identified. One plan would be to identify all members who meet the criteria, and then solicit some standard set of information from them. The board consensus was the awardees would need to be members of the society. It was suggested that we focus this award on individuals who are within 5-7 years post Ph.D. and who are not yet at the associate professor level. However, it was also suggested that we use only years post-Ph.D. so as not to penalize an individual who might obtain Associate Professor level very quickly. Lee Anna suggested that we gather data before making decisions about the criteria. The plan would be to ask Aaron to add the option to collect year of Ph.D. and institute of Ph.D. and then poll the members to input their information. We discussed having some function on the website that requires members to input this information when they do something like registering or paying dues. We could get Aaron to tie it to logging on to the site, asking you to complete this information. It was agree to forward to the website committee the request that this information be collected through the website, leaving the method used to prompt input of the information for the committee to work out with Aaron.
Graduate Student Oral Presentations and Women in Science Session
Deanna suggested that we revisit the idea of a graduate student talk session and a “women in science” session. Michael Green commented on the results of the attempt to add a session of graduate student talks in the past. He noted that there were some difficulties with it in the past, including how to do the review process and the logistics of making it work in terms of timing, interface with Levin Award submissions, etc. Michael Pogue-Geile suggested that if we do go to dual tracks, we consider allowing students to give talks. However, other members of the board felt that it was still not wise to have students give talks due to concern about adequate attendance if member talks were at the same time as student talks. It was suggested that students could apply for the Smadar Levin Award and / or to give a talk. The board agreed that a decision regarding this is dependent on the voting regarding the dual-track situation. If we go dual-track, then we might be able to devote a session to a student presentation session. We had a discussion about a number of choices that would need to be made:
1) Can they apply for both a talk and Smadar Levin Award?
2) If they can apply for the Smadar Levin Award, would they be judged on the talk or would they do a poster as well?
3) How would the application for talks be made and who would do the selection?
It was agreed that a women in science session would be good to add. We would do it at the end of the day. Deanna volunteered to coordinate the senior women invitees.