11/11/09, Tucson, AZ– NASPSPA Fall Executive Committee (EC) Meeting
Attending: Jill Whitall (Past-President), Craig Hall (President), Jody Jensen (President-Elect), Dave Sherwood (Secretary-Treasurer), Jennifer Etnier (Communication Director-Elect), Rebecca Bassett (Student Representative), and Penny McCullagh (Conference Organizer).
The meeting was called to order by President Craig Hall at 8:40 am.
I.1) Approval of Pre-Conference and Post-Conference Minutes.
Sherwood distributed the minutes from the previous EC meetings and after a review both sets of minutes were approved unanimously. The 2009 Business Meetingminutes were also distributed for comment. All minutes will be posted on thewebsite.
II.Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as amended.
III.2009 Conference Report.
a)Management. McCullagh distributed a handout summarizing the issues arising from the 2009 Austin conference. We need to improve the registration process. Some members who paid conference registration fees were not on our list. Penny and Dave will work with Human Kinetics (HK) to try to improve the process. We will also work with HK to make sure a reimbursable receipt is provided, perhaps by providing a receipt at the conference site if needed. Also, the walk-ins at the conference make it difficult to plan the Saturday night social. Perhaps a check box can be used to track those who are staying for the social.
b)Attendance. Our attendance was down by approximately 150 causing a problem in meeting our room guarantee of 80%. Overall, the poor economy and the lack of travel funds for many faculty and students have a strong negative affect on attendance. Penny reported the loss on the 2009 conference to be only $1,125.00. The EC discussed many ways to increase attendance at future meetings including designing the conference program to attract professionals from other disciplines (physical therapy, physicians, coaches) and inviting undergraduate students from local colleges and universities. Jody will form a sub-committee to look into how we might attract a targeted group to our future conferences. In the short term, Jill and Penny will work on a plan to attract local physical therapists and their students to the Tucson conference. Jill will also reach out to other organizations in sport science/kinesiology to advertize our conference on their website.
c)Conference Feedback. Feedback from the online post-conference questionnaire was discussed in detail (see summary in Appendix). Over 80% of those who responded rated the experience at the 2009 conference “good” or “excellent”. The keynote speakers in 2009 were rated excellent more often than the other components of the conference. The format for all of the program components were at least “good”. The EC also discussed many of the individual comments made by members. It was clear from the comments that the quality of the conference is a major concern for the membership, with much less emphasis on the location of the conference.
IV.Tucson Conference 2010
a)Tour of facilities. The EC toured the facilities with the on-site staff. In general, the EC were impressed with the meeting facilities and those for the Saturday night social.
b)Submissions. The on-site meeting with HK to discuss issues dealing with the website and the submission process could not be arranged. Jill will test the online submission process before the 12/1/09 opening date for abstract submission.
c)Conference Program. Jill reported that the program committees were making progress in confirming their keynote speakers. In the motor learning/control area Dr. Scott Grafton will be the keynote speaker, and Digby Elliott will be the senior lecturer. Dr. Diane Damiano will be the speaker in motor development and Dr. Carlo de Luca will be a special keynote speaker. Mike McBeath from ASU will be the HK lecturer. A pre-conference workshop on variability and dynamical systems will be held Thursday morning.
d)Student Events. One suggestion to connect senior faculty and students was to hold a faculty-student lunch on Saturday, with a 10-student/faculty member ratio, with 2-3 faculty attending.
e)Sponsorship. Jody reported that feedback from the sponsors indicated that we need to improve the interaction between the sponsors and the attendees at the conference. Many suggestions were made including allowing the sponsors to speak for 2-3 minutes on the opening night of the conference, reducing their time on site to Thursday and Friday, allowing the sponsors to submit one slide for presentation at the business meeting or HK lecture, reminding the membership to give credit to our sponsors when they use their equipment in their research. It was also mentioned to change the sponsorship letter to let the sponsor know how long their logo would stay on the website (through the summer following the conference). Jenny will be checking into how much we could charge for click-through links on our site.
V.Future Conferences
a)Burlington 2011. The conference will be held at the Hilton in Burlington, VT. Room rates are expected to be $189 per night. Conference registration fees are expected to be $155/185/225 for students $250/290/330 for professionals. The estimated expenses for the 2011 conference are about $44,000.
b)Hawaii 2012. The EC confirmed its wish to hold the 2012 conference in Hawaii and asked Penny to begin negotiations with the appropriate hotels. Room rates are expected to be in the $265-275 per night range for the dates we want.
VI.Awards and Nominations
a)Nominating Committees. Craig presented the nominating committees for NASPSPA awards and they were approved by the EC.Currently 8
individuals are under consideration for president-elect, with at least 4 for secretary-treasurer.
b)Student Representative. A discussion was held on how to select student nominees for the student representative when more than 2 students are interested in the position. It was recommended that a sub-committee be formed by the Past-President to rank order the candidates.
VII.Secretary-Treasurer Report
a)Membership report. Dave distributed the membership report for 2009 and reported the membership had declined to 380 members (from 560 in 2008). It was clear that many individuals not planning to attend the conference did not renew their membership.
b)Financial report. Dave reported a net loss of $13,517 for FY08-09, primarily due to the reduced membership level for 2009. The balance on the account as of 8/31/09 was $51,539.38.
c)CD. The certificate of deposit with Wells Fargo was renewed at 2.4% with a 27-month term (new maturity date 9/19/2011).
d)Taxes. The taxes for FY 2008-2009 have been submitted to the accountant. The penalties for failing to file the proper tax forms in previous years have been waived by the IRS.
VIII.Communication Director Report
a)Website. Jenny expressed frustration with HK due to the delay in the production of the new website. Also some of the information on the website is out of date and the membership page is not functional. Jenny also was not able to access the site on some days. The EC discussed ways in which we might provide an incentive ($3K -$5K) in order to fund a programmer to get the changes made to our site.
b)Newsletter. Jenny reported that the fall newsletter is nearing completion and the draft should be in to Christie at HK next week.
c)Conference Issues. The EC discussed a number of ideas related to the communication of the conference abstracts. Suggestions included providing the conference abstracts on PDAs, or on CDs. It was decided to provide print abstracts for the 2010 conference, but to ask the membership at the business meeting about their preferences for other options.
IX.President Elect Report
a)Policy Manual changes. It was suggested that members request absentee ballots directly from the secretary-treasurer, rather than the president, as currently stated in the policy manual. This proposed change will be described in the Spring newsletter and will be an agenda item for the 2010 Business Meeting.
b)Timelines. It was suggested that timelines for the various duties for president and president-elect be developed and included in the appendices of the policy manual.
c)Other. Jody suggested that the EC create an operations manual for NASPSPA, separate from the policy manual. With the support of the EC, Jody will bring ideas for the manual to the pre-conference EC meeting.
X.President’s Report
a)Business Meeting 2010. Craig reported that the business meeting at the 2010 meeting will be held on Friday, rather than Saturday, and lunch will be provided.
b)Election Procedures. Craig reported that some members have requested a review of the election procedures of NASPSPA, suggesting that elections be held online or via email, rather than at the Business Meeting. The rationale for this change would be to avoid the bias that occurs when a candidate cannot attend the conference the year they are up for election. Jody will write a revision for presentation to the membership at the next business meeting.
c)Merging with SCAPPS. Craig has heard from a few members of SCAPPS that it might be in the best interests of both organizations that NASPSPA merge with SCAPPS, since both organizations focus on the same research areas and holds a similar conference each year. The EC was in favor of further investigating the possibility of a merge by opening a dialogue with the EC of SCAPPS.
XI.Student Representative’s Report.
a)Student Social. Rebecca reported that she is looking forward to the student activities at the conference. The student-faculty lunch will be initiated at the 2010 conference to allow students to ask senior faculty about the professional and personal demands of a faculty member.
b)Name Change. The EC asked that Rebecca continue to investigate the possibility of a student-initiated name change.
c)Travel Awards. Jill reported that there were no submissions for the September deadline for travel award and questioned whether we need that particular submission date. After discussion, it was decided to advertize the deadlines more effectively, and maintain the 3 deadlines for the time being.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Sherwood
NASPSPA Secretary/Treasurer
Unofficial minutes - vote to approve will take place at Annual Conference in 2010
Appendix ANASPSPA 2009 Conference Evaluation
On the whole, how would you rate your experience at the 2009 NASPSPA conference?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Excellent / 31.1% / 47
Good / 56.3% / 85
Fair / 11.3% / 17
Poor / 1.3% / 2
Which area did you attend most?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Sport and Exercise Psychology Sessions / 34.4% / 52
Motor Development Sessions / 11.3% / 17
Motor Learning and Control Sessions / 54.3% / 82
How would you rate the quality of each of the following program components of the conference?
Answer Options / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
Keynote Presentations / 66 / 63 / 8 / 2
Senior Lecturer Presentations / 47 / 73 / 16 / 2
Early Career Presentations / 40 / 62 / 14 / 0
Symposia Presentations / 35 / 76 / 20 / 1
Paper Presentations / 22 / 93 / 28 / 2
Poster Presentations / 25 / 86 / 29 / 5
How would you rate the format (e.g., time of day, length of time) of each of the following program components of the conference?
Answer Options / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
Keynote Presentations / 53 / 83 / 3 / 1
Senior Lecturer Presentations / 46 / 86 / 8 / 1
Early Career Presentations / 44 / 77 / 5 / 1
Symposia Presentations / 34 / 89 / 9 / 2
Paper Presentations / 37 / 92 / 9 / 1
Poster Presentations / 45 / 83 / 12 / 2
How would you rate your experiences with preparing for the conference as it related to the following?
Answer Options / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
Promotional Information / 28 / 87 / 20 / 2
Abstract Submission / 49 / 70 / 15 / 1
Hotel Reservations / 39 / 65 / 21 / 5
Conference Registration / 44 / 74 / 20 / 4
How would you rate your experiences while at the conference with the following?
Answer Options / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
Program Information / 52 / 88 / 5 / 0
Interaction with Sponsors / 19 / 62 / 30 / 3
Registration Process / 60 / 72 / 9 / 1
How would you rate the format (e.g., time of day, length of time, lunch provision) of the business meeting?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Excellent / 23.1% / 33
Good / 44.8% / 64
Fair / 4.9% / 7
Poor / 2.8% / 4
N/A / 24.5% / 35
Which is your preferred option for Tucson next year where the weather will be very hot during the day and less suitable for outside exercise except in the early morning?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Keep the format basically as this year (e.g., 8 am to 6-7:30 pm depending on the day) / 43.1% / 62
Start later and finish later by the same amount of time(e.g., 9 am to 7-8:30 pm) / 27.8% / 40
Start later and have less time between sessions (e.g., 9 am to 6:30-8 pm) / 29.2% / 42
How would you rate your experiences with the following aspects of the conference?
Answer Options / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
Conference Hotel / 59 / 63 / 9 / 3
Meeting Rooms / 58 / 67 / 16 / 1
Audio/video Equipment / 49 / 69 / 17 / 1
Opening Reception / 26 / 58 / 28 / 1
Coffee Breaks / 26 / 72 / 35 / 2
Banquet / 38 / 43 / 29 / 9
Live Band (at banquet) / 25 / 28 / 36 / 8
Student Social / 22 / 14 / 5 / 2
What is your primary consideration for attending a NASPSPA conference?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Quality of Program / 48.6% / 71
Location / 9.6% / 14
Cost / 15.8% / 23
Support of NASPSPA / 26.0% / 38