|
NLPES Site Map
About NLPES
NLPES Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Minutes
NCSL National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES)
July 16, 2000
The Executive Committee met on Sunday, July 16, 2000 in Chicago, IL. Copies of handouts discussed during the meeting are kept on file with the NLPES secretary.
Members present at the meeting were Joel Alter, James Barber, Gary Brown, Martha Carter, Rick Coleman, David Greer, Shan Hays, Craig Kinton, Rob Krell, Heather Moritz, Jane Thesing, and Gary VanLandingham. Others present at the meeting were Max Arinder (MS), Wade Melton (FL), Roger Brooks (MN), and Bob Boerner from NCSL.
NLPES Committee Meetings
From 3:00 - 3:30 p.m., committee chairs met with their respective committees to discuss committee business.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Craig Kinton, Chair, at 3:30 p.m. The committee affirmed its previous electronic approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 31, 2000. Craig noted that the proposed change in the NLPES by-laws to remove the requirement that the vice-chair be in the first year of a two-year term had also been approved electronically.
Futures Study at Fall Training Conference
Max Arinder distributed copies of the NCSL publications Legislatures of the Future: Implications of Change and A Practical Guide to Futures Study. These publications are a result of a two-year study about the future of the legislature. Max will be presenting this topic at the fall training conference in Austin and needs facilitators to help in a group futures exercise. He asked the committee to review the driving forces of change and the four scenarios projected for the legislatures of the future presented in the NCSL publication. We should consider whether the scenarios need to be amended to be relevant to NLPES members and whether we can identify any additional driving forces of change that will be affecting the work of NLPES members.
Max reviewed the agenda for the futures exercise at the Texas conference. He has already done this exercise with the executive committee of NCSL and with the State Governmental Affairs Council (SGAC). Max went over the facilitator instructions. Since the fall conference is a joint conference of RACSS and NLPES, the two staff sections should work together on the questions that will be considered. Participants will be divided into groups that should be no more than 20 in number. Max then asked for volunteers to be facilitators (at least 8 are needed), and all the members of the executive committee volunteered. He will also try to get 4 volunteers from RACSS. Executive committee members are asked to send suggestions for modifications to the scenarios, additional driving forces of change, and suggestions to modify the facilitator guidelines to James Barber in the next two weeks.
Committee Reports
Craig asked if there were any questions or issues that needed to be discussed in response to the committee reports that were distributed prior to the meeting. There were no questions, and it was noted that the format of the reports, addressing each committee's charges, was easy to follow.
Strategic Planning
David Greer distributed and discussed his memo of March 23, 2000, about the executive committee's strategic planning efforts. This effort was formerly spearheaded by Gerry Hoppmann, who left the committee. David commented that the direction of strategic planning efforts would be most appropriately left to the new (2000/2001) executive committee. He also said that he was not comfortable with the draft mission statement in the memo, and thought that there were too many indicators at this point. He further said that he thought it was important for all NLPES members to understand what NLPES is doing, and identified a need, as voiced by his staff, for improved communication and services. Craig indicated that we would present the information to the new committee. Members discussed David's concerns further. Some pointed out that there is value in figuring out what we should do differently, although it is hard to change how much we mean to the rank and file. Other members said that their offices felt positive about NLPES efforts, especially if they had ever participated in a training conference. Some ideas for new efforts included having regional training events, providing NLPES orientation to all new staff, and possibly developing a more meaningful peer review for NLPES. Max Arinder pointed out that there is no funding for services provided by NLPES; NLPES activity is comprised of volunteer efforts by members.
Annual Meeting
Jane Thesing went over the annual meeting agenda for NLPES. We discussed the format of the awards presentation at the luncheon. There was some concern expressed about the meeting rooms and time slots that NLPES gets at the annual meeting. One purpose of our agenda is to educate legislators, and this is hampered when our time slots and rooms do not encourage their attendance.
Fall Training Conference
Craig reported that the speakers are lined up for the plenary sessions, and most of the concurrent sessions are filled. They still need some speakers for the information technology panels. The social events are lined up. They are working to straighten out the room rate for those who will arrive Thursday night. Letters to panelists and moderators went out this week. Craig will get out the updated agenda showing who is participating and where the holes are.
Solicitation of Funds
The committee discussed whether NLPES should solicit funds for its operations, particularly training conferences. There are several issues. Should we have a policy? Should we solicit funds for general support, or special events? What types of funds are we talking about? It could include NLPES agency funds, other government entities, such as university funds, or corporate funds. When Mississippi had the training conference they used training credits they had built up by conducting training for state government to obtain training for the conference.
On the one hand, soliciting funds could create conflicts of interest, could lead to fund-raising competition by NLPES agencies, and could be seen as frivolous (to throw bigger parties, etc.). On the other hand, more funds could allow us to hire better speakers or buy down room rates to allow more to attend. Some of the other staff sections, notably leadership and the clerks, do solicit funds for their meetings. There are no particular guidelines from NCSL on this issue. Craig mentioned that he had received comments from other NLPES members when he raised the issue. Barb Hinton of Kansas and Mary Noble of California wrote in general opposition to the idea of soliciting funds. It is possible that some offices might not attend our meetings if funds had been solicited. There was some discussion of doing a survey. The issues of whether we need a policy and whether there would be value in setting parameters were further discussed. It was pointed out that NLPES members might be governed by rules or codes unique to their agencies. Another approach that would differ from setting parameters for funding would be for the executive committee to discuss outside funding on a case-by-case basis.
James Barber suggested that we would discuss this further at our Thursday meeting and decide what further feedback to get prior to our meeting in Austin.
NLPES Survey
Gary VanLandingham distributed copies of the NLPES survey Ensuring the Public Trust; How Program Policy Evaluation Is Serving State Legislatures. The publication (of NLPES and the ASI fiscal affairs committee) contains summary information on the survey of NLPES organizations and also individual profiles of NLPES member states. Forty-four responses were received, so this a comprehensive effort.
Closing
Craig stated that he appreciated everyone's hard work. He noted that all the committees have addressed their charges and stated that he found the committee members a pleasure to work with.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Thesing, Secretary
|
