Minutes
AAKPE Business Meeting
Saturday, September 28, 2002
Tucson, AZ
39 Active Fellows were present for all or part of the meeting.
1. President D. Feltz called the meeting to order at 12:35 p. m. PDT
2. Approval of Minutes from the 2000 Annual Meeting
G. Krahenbuhl moved and K. Cureton seconded approval of the minutes from the 2000 meeting which had been posted on the website. The motion was approved unanimously.
3. Treasurer’s Report
S. Silverman reviewed the treasurer’s report for September 1, 2001 – August 31, 2002 which had been previously distributed. S. Silverman indicated that there were some categories that were different from previous years because of refunds for the 2001 meeting and because of donations to the AAKPE and the September 11th Fund. Total income for the year was $14,265. Total expenses were $8,248 with a positive balance of $6,017. There was $17,818 in cash and bank accounts and $74,743 in investments for total assets of $92,560 and no liabilities. The average return on investment income for the period was -1.23%. M. Sherman moved and G. Krahenbuhl seconded that the treasurer’s report be accepted. The motion was approved unanimously.
4. Executive Committee and Committee Reports
President Feltz asked the membership if there were any questions on the previously distributed reports (President’s [D. Feltz], President-Elect’s [R. Magill], Secretary-Treasurer’s [S. Silverman], Newsletter Editor’s [M. Sherman], Standing Committee on Documents and Governance [prepared by S. Kretchmar], Standing Committee on Memorials [prepared by J. Harris], Standing Committee on Awards [prepared by M. O’Sullivan], Visibility Committee [prepared by J. Dunn], and the Business Office [prepared by K. Scott]). There were no questions. M. Sherman moved and J. Wilmore seconded that the reports be accepted. The motion was approved unanimously.
5. Memorial Statements
J. Harris, chair of the Standing Committee on Memorials, noted that we had four memorial statements. A memorial statement for Sinbou Abe (International Fellow) was prepared by Tetsuo Meshzuha and read by J. Harris. A memorial statement for Catherine Allen (Fellow # 157) was prepared by W. Spirduso and read by J. Harris. A memorial statement for Marion Brorer (Fellow # 144) was prepared and read by J. Clark. A memorial statement for Bill Heusner (Fellow # 210) was prepared by D. Feltz and read by J. Pivarnik. Each memorial statement was followed by a moment of silence.
6. Bylaws Changes
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Documents and Governance, S. Silverman presented changes to the bylaws that were sent to each Fellow by mail on June 7, 2002. On behlf of the committee S. Silverman moved the following changes (Strike out reflects deletion. Bold print reflects new inclusion):
Article II, Section 3. A simple majority of all votes cast for each individual candidate shall elect a Fellow, providing a quorum or more of all Active Fellows votes for the candidates.
Article VI, Section 3. All votes by Active Fellows for Officers and Executive Committee shall be cast by mail ballot which must be sent out not less than thirty (30) days prior to the annual meeting. If two (2) or more Active Fellows are voted upon for the same office, a majority shall signify election, provided a quorum of ballots is returned. Ballots must be returned to the Chairperson of the Committee on Nomination and Election of Officers not less than two (2) weeks before the annual meeting in order to be counted. In case there is not majority for an office, a second vote shall be taken at the annual meeting. Any tie shall be resolved by a vote of the Executive Committee.
Article IX, Section 5. The Academy has eight (8) standing committees: (a) the Standing Committee on Membership, (b) the Standing Committee on Awards, (c) the standing Committee on Publications, (d) the Standing Committee on International Relations, (e) the Standing Committee on Documents of Governance, (f) the Standing Committee on Memorials, (g) the Standing Committee on Nomination and Election of Officers, and (h) the Standing Committee on Convention and Banquet Management. The Academy has five (5) standing committees: (a) the Standing Committee on Membership, (b) the Standing Committee on Awards, (c) the Standing Committee on Documents of Governance, (d) the Standing Committee on Memorials, and (e) the Standing Committee on Nomination and Election of Officers.
Article XIII, Section 1. Proposed amendments to the Articles of Incorporation shall be discussed at the Annual Meeting after they have been mailed to the Active Fellows at least thirty (30) days in advance.
Section 2. The Articles of Incorporation may be amended only by mail vote, and as described in the preceding section. The voting shall be closed sixty (60) days after submission in written form to the Active Fellows. A majority affirmative vote of the ballots returned by the Active Fellows, provided a quorum (1/4 of the total number of active fellows) is obtained, is necessary for the passage of each proposed amendment.
Section 1. Proposed amendments to the Articles of Incorporation shall be distributed to the Fellows in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of annual meeting. This can be through direct mailing or by electronic means. Following discussion of proposed amendments, voting shall take place at the Annual Business Meeting. A majority of those voting is necessary for the passage of each proposed amendment. Those who are not attending the meeting can submit a signed proxy to any Fellow of the Academy who is attending the Annual Business Meeting. Those Fellows with proxy votes must notify the Academy Secretary/Treasurer at the start of the Annual Business Meeting.
BY – LAWS Section 1. The By-Laws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the Active Fellows present at the Annual Meeting, provided the proposed amendment shall have been submitted in writing by the Secretary-Treasurer to all Active Fellows at least thirty (30) days previous to the meeting, and further provided that a quorum votes on the amendment. Non-attending Active Fellows may register their votes by mail.
Section 2. The By-Laws also may be amended by mail vote, provided the proposed change shall have been discussed at an Annual Meeting, provided further that the mail vote shall close sixty (60) days after submission of the proposed amendment to the Active Fellows by the Secretary-Treasurer, and provided also that a majority affirmative vote of the Active Fellows casting ballots (representing at least a quorum) shall be necessary to effect an amendment.
Section 1. Proposed amendments to the By-Laws shall be distributed to the Fellows in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of annual meeting. This can be through direct mailing or by electronic means. Following discussion of proposed amendments, voting shall take place at the Annual Business Meeting. A two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of those voting is necessary for the passage of each proposed amendment. Those who are not attending the meeting can submit a signed proxy to any Fellow of the Academy who is attending the Annual Meeting. Those Fellows with proxy votes must notify the Academy Secretary/Treasurer at the start of the Annual Business Meeting.
S. Silverman noted, as written in the justification that went to all members with the letter in June, that, if accepted, these changes would reflect how we currently do business or will permit greater flexibility and the use of electronic forms of communication with the membership. There were no questions. The motion to change the bylaws was unanimously approved.
7. Doctoral Program Evaluation
President Feltz introduced the topic and stated that Past-President Krahenbuhl would present an overview and recommendations from the Executive Committee about doctoral program evaluation. Past-President’s Krahenbuhl’s presentation focused on the following points. Background on the project included that there was a need expressed by the membership and their university administrators for doctoral program evaluation, initial pilot studies were completed in 2000, the membership authorized sending the instrument to all doctoral granting programs, and the first full attempt at data collection has been completed. Among the reasons for gathering comparative data are: it can be used for self-assessment to determine relative strengths and weaknesses, it provides benchmarks for determining current placement on the measures and changes over time, and departments would have authoritative data to use with deans and provosts. Past-President Krahenbuhl noted that these were all internal uses. He then went on the explain the results of the recent full attempt at data collection. Twenty-six of 59 doctoral programs participated. There was information on eight variables, but no overall ranking or programs. All participating institutions received their results with the scores for all institutions but only they were identified. The results of this survey are to be kept confidential and anonymous unless permission is given by the institution and a majority of AAKPE members vote to reveal the names.
Based on an extended discussion at the meeting on the previous Thursday, Past-President Krahenbuhl presented Executive Committee recommendations that the results should be made available to members of the Academy, but with restrictions on authorized uses of the data. These results would include eight figures with means and error bars, institutional names where approval has been given, and a explanation of the eight variables. The authorized use would be for internal use to the home institution, such as self-studies and program reviews. Unauthorized uses would be those external to the home institution and AAKPE member, such as listings in catalogues, brochures, or promotional literature or listing it in presentations and publications, or any other use not explicitly authorized. It would be the responsibility of Academy members to control the data and ensure it is used only for authorized purposes. The unauthorized use of the data would be considered a breach of professional ethics.
At the conclusion of Past-President Krahenbuhl’s presentation President Feltz thanked him and asked for questions. An extended discussion took place that first focused on the balance between the need to honor commitments to those who participated and the need for public rankings to use with deans and provosts. A number of Fellows noted that it would be hard to control what others do with the rankings if the material were shared with others. There was a thread of this discussion that focused on a publication in Quest, but some felt that would be difficult because of how the data were collected and the commitments to institutions. President Feltz noted that in the next round of doctoral program evaluation it should be made clear that agreeing to participate means agreement to have the information made public. There was then some discussion of whether other indicators should be included, particularly given the focus of the current meeting. K. Newell stated that we needed one score to be able to use the information and that those using the information will look silly without a single ranking.
There was then discussion about the current scores and that they are based on four years data. M. Sherman suggested using the information for a validation paper, but others thought that would be difficult. J. Thomas said that we should encourage the National Research Council (NRC) to include us and that it would be good for the field. J. Dunn stated he felt we could have both and K. Newell strongly supported this, noting that institutions could then use each ranking how ever they wanted and, in his opinion, there are some problems with the indicators and that weighting should be used for a final ranking. J. Morrow noted his support for NRC rankings and that any formula, particularly one that required weighting, would never get passed by the membership.
The discussion then focused on possible differences between NRC and the AAKPE survey and many again emphasized the need for a single ranking. Past-President Krahenbuhl then summarized that he thought the discussion suggested three motions: (a) direct the president, assisted by those who had worked on it in the past, to contact the NRC and work for inclusion; (b) create a standing committee to create a single score and a five year review cycle; and (c) take steps to make available to members what data have been collected.
J. Clark moved and M. Sherman seconded that the membership directs the incoming president to immediately initiate contact with the NRC to include kinesiology as a field in their next review. Discussion followed and focused on how to lobby the NRC and on what variables would be used. J. Wilmore called the question. After S. Silverman reread the motion it was approved unanimously.
G. Krahenbuhl moved and J. Wilmore seconded that a presidential committee be created, that they use existing data to repeat a study with the goal of obtaining a single ranking with possible new variables, and that the membership suggests formation of a standing committee on doctoral program evaluation. The vote immediately followed and was unanimous with one abstention. A. Jackson asked about support for this committee and President Feltz explained that she received limited support when she was chair of the committee conducting the survey.
G. Krahenbuhl moved and M. Sherman seconded that the current doctoral program evaluation results be made available for unrestricted use with institutions identified after they agree and with the approval of the AAKPE membership. After a short discussion T. Scanlan called the question. The motion was unanimously approved.