Visitor Studies Association
Executive Committee Meeting via Conference Call
June 9, 2009
MINUTES
Present: Rita Deedrick, Kirsten Ellenbogen, Daryl Fischer, Alan Friedman, Julie Johnson, Kathy McLean, Beverly Serrell
Association Manager: Randy Roberts
Absent: David Anderson,
Guests: Cecilia Garibay, Matt Sikora
Call to Order: McLean called the meeting to order at 10:02 AM ET.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:Anderson, not present
Deedrick, no
Ellenbogen, no
Fischer, no
Friedman, no
Johnson, no
McLean, no
Serrell, no
Consent Agenda:
Deedrick confirmed the contents of the consent agenda were the minutes of the May meeting and the following reports: VP Professional Development, VP Organizational Development, President, President-elect, Secretary, Association Manager, and Treasurer.
MOTION
Ellenbogen moved to accept the consent agenda; Johnson seconded, the motion carried.
Action/Discussion Items:
Association Manger Announcement
Roberts announced with great regret and excitement that she will be leaving the VSA Association Manager position to accept the position of Deputy Director of the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento; she will begin the position in September. We all shared in the excitement and congratulated Roberts on attaining this position. Though her departure will leave a big hole in VSA, we unanimously expressed our appreciation for all that she has done and wished her well. Roberts assured the EC that she will work to achieve a smooth transition, and will stay connected to VSA through membership and volunteer committee work.
McLean responded that she and Ellenbogen will work together to form a transition task force and plan an announcement to the full board and the VSA membership.
2010 Conference Theme
Johnson referred to the proposed 2010 conference theme as provided in her VP report and asked for input. Serrell commented that she likes the concept but is worried that it is too ambitious and broad; she cautioned against taking on too much, especially the idea of a shared research agenda. McLean echoed the concern about scope of the plan and the tenor it might set for the conference. Ellenbogen questioned the validity of a single research agenda for an organization and cautioned against trying to generate a consensus document; she would be more likely to support the proposal if it read agendas (plural). Roberts clarified that the intention is to go into the 2010 conference with a plan to develop an agenda and draft framework that can then be used in further professional development opportunities.
Johnson will take the EC’s concerns back to Conference Committee saying that approval is based on the understanding that the Conference Committee will not try to develop a single agenda; she will ask the Conference Committee to restate the proposal – Johnson will forward revised proposal to EC via email.
Roles, Responsibilities, Terms, and Appointment of Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs
McLean thanked Board Development Committee (BDC) Chair, Garibay, for attending this portion of the EC meeting. McLean briefed the EC about conversations that had taken place among various EC members about the roles and expectations of committee chairs and vice-chairs. Citing the 2007 VSA policy that created vice-chair roles, McLean expressed a need for clarity around the responsibilities and expectations of chairs and vice-chairs. Fischer added that an outcome of the conversations was the realization of a need for an overall policy and process for appointing chairs and vice-chairs that addresses issues of term limits, leadership succession, expectations, and evaluation of performance. She emphasized that succession is especially important given the amount of work performed by committees.
Garibay said that the 2007 policy was formed with the intention of primarily sharing responsibilities between the chairs and vice-chairs. She added that the vice-chair role has grown since then and this is a good time to revisit the issue as it is an evolving process.
Deedrick agreed with Garibay adding that we are at the close of our first cycle with this policy and are just now discovering its strengths and weaknesses.
Johnson noted that VSA has documented the charge of each committee but has not documented the role of committee leadership; Ellenbogen suggested adding to each committee charge the role of the chair and vice-chair. Garibay agreed saying that existing policies moves towards this, but don’t quite meet the need.
Deedrick clarified that the BDC has a three-part task: define the roles of chairs and vice-chairs; develop a recommendation on committee leadership succession; and develop a process for performance evaluation that will guide the EC and board in committee oversight.
Garibay agreed that the BDC would chart a course of action, though they may return to the EC for clarification as this develops.
SEMI EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Executive Committee went into semi-executive session to continue the discussion related to committee leadership.
Strategic Planning Task Force Report
Ellenbogen reported that the Strategic Planning Task Force – Ellenbogen, Roberts, Serrell, Deedrick, and Sikora – met to discuss continued planning. The task force agreed that an important step will be prioritizing activities, and that can be the focus of the July board meeting. However, VSA must first consider and address the issue of defining VSA’s audience, particularly the role of the “practitioner.”
The task force report included two different scenarios for consideration, each describing a way for VSA to move forward with audience definition and direction. “Scenario One” focuses on evaluators and researchers – anyone who does visitor studies as any part of their work – as the primary audiences, and serves practitioners as a secondary audience. “Scenario Two” radically shifts the way VSA involves practitioners and fully integrates them into VSA. Ellenbogen stated that the task force favors Scenario One, emphasizing that it does not exclude practitioners.
Reactions from the EC – particularly those who identify as “practitioners” – were a mix of “relief” to have articulated the issue, and “sadness” that the grander vision of a more integrated VSA does not seem realistic.
--McLean said that the task force report articulates what we have been “tripping over” for years and crystallizes what our journey might be moving forward. She later added that VSA has naturally gone in a particular direction, and it is important to acknowledge the “personality” of the organization. McLean said that Scenario Two is a good intellectual construct, but it is not a good working construct.
--Johnson said that Scenario One seems like what VSA has been practicing and is clear about how we are actually behaving, regardless of what we have said we would do. Johnson also expressed that her “heart is in the other scenario” though she understands the difficulty in achieving it.
--Fischer agreed that in practice we are more directed toward evaluators than practitioners and feels some sense of relief to reconcile what we have been doing with what we say.
-- Friedman, agreed that that the task force has taken a clear, realistic look at VSA. He added that recruiting practitioners as a category has been very difficult.
--Serrell stated that she strongly supports Scenario One with empathy for Scenario Two. She added that Scenario One offers continued inclusion of practitioners and will be a good filter for us to use for planning.
--Roberts noted profound implications in adopting Scenario One – that to focus is to truly advocate for visitor studies in a way that has been recently diluted. She furthered that in accepting Scenario One, Visitor Studies as an organization is truly saying that to understand visitors and improve visitor experiences is to pay attention to evidence and data-based research and that there is a real difference in belief (among practitioners) about what makes a difference. Scenario One positions VSA to make a real case for visitor studies.
From the task force, Sikora said that he hoped that we would not lose the gains we have accomplished in the past few years in reaching beyond researchers and evaluators, and hoped that decision about direction will help us move past language such as the word “practitioners” that can polarize us. Ellenbogen recognized the work that the Membership Committee and Board Development Committee has done towards implementation of the larger vision of more practitioner inclusion.
MOTION
Friedman moved that the Executive Committee present both scenarios to the full board for consideration with the knowledge that the Executive Committee reviewed and discussed the scenarios at length, and the Executive Committee recommends Scenario One for approval; Deedrick seconded; the motion carried with one abstention.
Ellenbogen said that the task force will continue work onplanning strategic planning activities at the July board meeting.
The EC will continue to discuss this at the July EC meeting, including how to communicate outcomes to the membership.
Request for Funds for Software Update and Monthly Budget Discussion
Fischer requested on behalf of the Membership Committee the purchase of an upgrade to the ACT software, which will allow for more flexible use of the data. Treasurer Serrell recommended approval of this request as well as the request for QuickBooks software from incoming Treasurer Johnson. After monthly budget discussion, Ellenbogen moved for approval of the software purchase.
MOTION
Ellenbogen moved to approve the request for software purchase – QuickBooks and ACT upgrade - Friedman seconded; the motion carried.
Monthly Budget Discussion
Serrell reported “bad news and good news.” While revenue is down from plan, we still have money in the bank and are cautiously optimistic about VSA’s finances for this year. Roberts reported that conference registration is down somewhat; she will run numbers based on registration to date and fixed cost to see the results if we get no more conference registrations. Roberts believe the conference will break even. Fischer reminded the EC that sponsorship pledges are $5,000 over plan. McLean expressed concern that total income is about $18,000 under projection and urged us all to push conference registration. Roberts agreed saying that, anecdotally, many people are “on the fence” about attending and can likely be swayed to register. McLean will send a message to the board urging pro-active promotion of the conference.
In answer to a question that Serrell had posed in her report, Johnson offered that refunds for the cancelled workshop should be recorded as negative income. Johnson also clarified with Serrell that there is a small amount of money left over from the mid-career planning grant.
Publications – LSIE Book
Ellenbogen asked on behalf of the Publications Committee (PC) about posting the National Academy of Sciences discount offer for the LSIE book on the VSA website, noting some precedent for offering links to pertinent documents. After some discussion, we agreed to do so, making it available only to VSA members as a member benefit.
CAISE RFP
Friedman reminded us that the recent CAISE RFP for publications is an opportunity to position VSA as a useful organization and urged EC, board members, and VSA members to submit proposals; please refer those interested to the VSA website.
Adjourn:
Fischer moved to adjourn the meeting; Friedman seconded; the motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 AM ET.
Respectfully submitted,
Rita Deedrick, Secretary
1