National Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

On This Page

NCSL Contact

NLPES Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
May 19, 2012
Denver, Colo.

The executive committee met on Saturday, May 19, 2012. Copies of handouts discussed during the meeting are kept on file with the NLPES Secretary.

Members present at the meeting were:

Executive Committee Members
Greg Fugate, Colorado
Carol Ripple, North Carolina
Wayne Kidd, Utah
Lisa Kieffer, Georgia
Angus Maciver, Montana
Kathy McGuire, Florida
Scott Sager, Wisconsin
Karl Spock, Texas
Charles Salle, New Mexico
Rachel Hibbard, Hawaii’
Brenda Erickson, NCSL liaison
Called in
Marcia Lindsay, South Carolina
Dale Carlson, California
Scott called the meeting to order.
The committee approved the Sept. 18, 2011 minutes.

Opening Remarks

Brenda was introduced as the new NLPES staff liaison.  Directions were provided to new staff members regarding committee assignments.  
The Executive Committee broke into subcommittees for discussions.

Subcommittee Reports


Lisa reported —
Award submissions were due on Friday, May 18.  So far we have three submissions for Research, 24 for Impact and four for the Excellence Award.  More may come by mail next week.
Subcommittee is interested in changing submission date to the second Friday in May. The chair for each award will be one of the three subcommittee members, so this information is also be posted on the web in case someone is interested in submitting early.

For next meeting:

  • Looking at revising criteria for Research because it may be repetitive.
  • Recommendation on idea of adding a “Freshman” auditor award. Karl suggested this award may be more like the Impact in that there would be multiple awards for those meeting criteria. 
  • Lisa will send Dale the information on award winners for publication in the next newsletter.

Dale reported—

Monitoring of website Content: Charles will set up periodic monitoring and provide an update to the committee in Chicago.

Newsletter: Set deadline of June 29, 2012,for next newsletter. Will contain the following: 

  • Chair’s Corner – Scott
  • Report Radar - Angus
  • State Profiles - Karl
  • Generic Articles - Charles
  • What's Upcoming - Dale
  • New Training on the Web - Dale

The schedule for issuing will be three times per year: Oct/Nov (following PDS); Jan/Feb; and May/June (results of Spring Meeting; plan for LSS, Fall PDS, award winners). 

Brenda will make sure the newsletter comes out. Kathy will do an article on Ensuring the Trust. We will be using an electronic format. 

Regarding state profiles, Wayne asked if we could use for states that haven’t been as active historically. Greg suggested Executive Committee could provide some profiles to “have in the hopper” in case we are in need of one. It was also suggested that North Carolina and New Mexico could provide profiles since they are new to the Executive Committee. Kathy noted that James used to have some questions he used as a stimulus for the write-up so we could review those. Karl will look back at older newsletters that could provide framework.  Wisconsin will do the profile for this month.

Question of the Month – Question now is “Is it still viable, used?”  We have not been getting a huge response.  Kathy noted that in the survey (see below), the QOTM was identified as useful. 

Brenda will gather stats on the number of hits the QOTM has been getting. Scott also pointed out that part of the decision may be whether Joel Alter is interested in continuing to do the necessary work.  

Alternatives discussed included using the listserv to pose questions and having the responses automatically forward to Brenda as well so she could compile and post. Questions seem to be arising organically and if there isn’t one per month – but we wanted to continue a monthly question – we could have the one of the Executive Committee states ask question if one has not been posted.

Scott will talk with Joel about his view on the purpose and continued viability of the QOTM as well as Joel’s interest in continuing to manage it. Scott will let committee know what transpires.  

By the Chicago meeting, the subcommittee will have answers/recommendations regarding whether we:  

  • Keep the QOTM as is
  • Stop it altogether
  • Modify the process (reboot and rebrand)

State Contacts. Question is whether we should continue assigning states to Executive Committee members to contact. Scott noted that the effectiveness is somewhat determined by individuals’ comfort level with making the phone call. Kathy noted that this has been an outreach effort in prior years. Greg noted that the outreach is important but there are some differences in how we reach out to states based on their prior and current involvement. Consensus seemed to be that a targeted approach may be more useful. Scott suggested we could make calls after the Summit in Chicago.

What’s next
NLPES using Facebook does not appear doable. Twitter could be an option.Collaborative spaces (like the one NCSL has) could be an option. Scott noted that we will need a champion for it who can communicate how, why and what (to use it for) if we go this route, which could be a substantial commitment. Karl noted that we may want to revisit the advantages of the listserv. 

Professional Development
Greg reported:

Webinars and e-Learning money – We are looking at training needs across levels and types of offices. We need to reinvigorate the Executive Committee to get some more content and may also be able to use PDS for content. We also need to remind people about what is already there.  Using the newsletter may be a good vehicle for this. 

Brenda will see about getting a copy of the actual contract with the Georgian Terrace to Lisa. Once that’s been received, we will provide NCSL with the final budget.

There is probably no need for T1 lines as long as we tell presenters the functionality will not be available.
The Executive Committee will look over topic ideas in the draft meeting schedule and send ideas for presenters to Lisa by June 1. 
Suggested trying to get data analytics casework, maybe at two levels, for one session, applied use being the target.
We should know how much the PEW stipends will be by the end of June.
The proposed budget—version three—was approved by the Executive Committee and released to NCSL pending receipt of the original, signed contract with the Georgian Terrace.
 Couple of ideas for training: Lean Government training; Risk Assessments (for yellow book states); Developing Your Research Questions 

There is money available for webinars. Applications are due in June. Karl noted that $35,000 is available and NCSL really wants groups to apply. Marcia noted that there have been technical difficulties with the last few webinars. Others noted these problems, too. Brenda said there have been problems with the phones over the last month, which could be related. She will pass along concerns. 

Kathy asked if there is a limit to what we can request. Scott said it is not explicit, but about $1,000. Karl asked if NCSL will pay for everything, or if it is a matter of us having to pay if we go over a certain number of connections. And the question of an honorarium is unclear. Brenda said this varies and staff sections may have to kick in some funds. Kathy noted that, in the Ensuring the Public Trust Survey, there was some willingness to pay to make the webinars interactive (18 yes votes and 71 maybes). Brenda said the rule of thumb is that a webinar can be done for under $1,000 but we can ask for more. She also noted that Megan Dorsch of NSCL could present on talking to the media.  

Peer Review
Nebraska is the next state to undergo Peer Review. Martha asked for reviewers with following characteristics: one yellow book state representative, one non yellow book state representative, experienced reviewers, reviewers from a smaller office, and reviewers geographically nearby. The people selected to conduct the review are: Jody Hauer – MN, Justin Stowe – KS, Jan Yamane – HI, and Brenda will be there as well.  Hawai’i has requested a peer review next year.

Other Business

Ensuring the Public Trust 
Kathy – A draft of Ensuring the Public Trust was handed out. Kathy requested we review and provide comment. 

Election and Vacancy Bylaw Discussion
Question 1 – Who is eligible to run and to vote?
There is not a list (by state/office) of who is eligible to vote. Brenda said she has had trouble getting a current roster list from each states. She could ask states to send in a roster with the ballots. Brenda said the state contacts were called and we found that changes had occurred. She differentiated the list based on legislative staff and those that are members of NLPES based on the information she received. If we want to continue, we could ask administrative staff (within the states) to let her know when changes occur. 
Left it that we would leave it to Brenda to work with Scott to determine if it is useful to update the list at the time of elections.
Question 2 – related to how the Executive Committee chooses officers.  Bylaws call for an annual meeting “in conjunction with the annual meeting” which has been equated with the Legislative Summit. Therefore, the election of offices occurred at the Professional Development Seminar. 
Question 3 – related to filling vacancies on the Executive Committee
The current Bylaw language reads:  "In the event of death, disability, removal or resignation of any member of the executive committee, the unsuccessful candidate who had the highest vote count in the most recent NLPES election shall be offered the seat for the remainder of the term. If there is no such candidate, then the executive committee shall elect a member of NLPES to serve in that seat until the next election."
Proposed to present the following language as a revision to the bylaws:
"...for the remainder of that seat’s term shall replace for the remainder of the term and in that seat until the next election and change elect to appoint."
The change was voted on and passed by the Executive Committee; the amendment will be presented to the membership.

2012 Legislative Summit
Brenda noted that we needed two evaluators to present at the first session. Karl thought Ken Levine could present and Greg said he could will in as necessary. NLPES also volunteered for the session on Legislative Oversight of Federal Funds. Angus or Karl agreed to facilitate. Two JLARC staff will be presenting at the Studying Retirement Session. Kathy asked how the decision was made on how to partner with other sections. Brenda emailed Scott and Karl regarding the decisions.
Charles noted that, since our work is geared to decision makers, our strategy should be in partnering with Standing Committees and gearing staff sections to staff issues. Scott cautioned that there had been some relationships with the Standing Committees in the past and the relationship was interpreted as negative by some. So it has been historically difficult at times. Charles said it was viewed as beneficial to his office and he would look into other Standing Committees and asked that other Executive Committee members do the same. Karl noted their experience had been mixed in dealing with Standing Committees because it was difficult to get them to meet our timeframe.
Greg and Scott noted that the fall is the time to make a decision on whether or not to try and get our own session. Then we could work on partnerships from there. Karl agreed and noted that Brenda was able to take advantage of opportunities when people offered partnerships and the impact was minimal, which was helpful to us. Next time, we will make sure people are aware of opportunities.
Self-Assessment Guide
Brenda discussed the guide and noted that it was a good tool and no consultant is needed to administer. There is also a web-based model in the works.  Angus agreed to the quality of the guide.  Brenda will re-distribute via NLPES Listserv.

Date and Location for Next Meeting:
Maybe Atlanta to see hotel. Scott will suggest a range of dates to accommodate for various sessions.

2012 PDS
Several points were decided: 

  • Brenda will see about getting a copy of the actual contract with the Georgian Terrace to Lisa. Once that’s been received, we will provide NCSL with the finalized budget.
  • There is probably no need for T1 lines as long as we tell presenters the functionality will not be available.
  • The Executive Committee will look over topic ideas in the draft meeting schedule and send ideas for presenters to Lisa by June 1.
  • Suggested trying to get data analytics casework, maybe at 2 levels, for one session. Applied use being the target.
  • We should know how much the PEW stipends will be by the end of June.
  • The proposed budget—version three—was approved by the Executive Committee and released to NCSL pending receipt of the original, signed contract with the Georgian Terrace.

2013 PDS
Karl noted that they were interested in hosting the 2013 PDS in Austin.  The Legislative Budget Office and Texas State Auditor’s Office are willing to help.  There is potential to use free space in Capitol and also potential to webcast sessions.  Additionally, AV is handled in house which will help with costs.  They are considering an October date and considerations for determining dates are the UT football schedule and Austin City Limits Music Festival. 

Other staff sections, including Security (who’s Staff Section Chair is from TX) and the Librarians (who’s Immediate Past Staff Section Chair is from TX), have indicated interest in partnering with us.
Outstanding Achievement Award
Scott will choose a group to evaluate the award application from Virginia.
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.