NACADA Commission and Interest Group Division Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, September 30, 2008     1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Chicago, Illinois

(Click HERE for pdf format)

Introductions — Attendees introduced themselves and told something unique about themselves that was not related to advising or higher education.

• Division Representatives:
• Victor Macaruso, Kathy Stockwell, Jennifer Joslin
• Executive Office Liaison: Julia Wolf
• Commission Chairs and Incoming Chairs: Renee Babcock, David Benz, LaDonna Bridges, Pat Folsom, Cornelius Gilbert, Amanda Hatton, Joyce Howland, Cindy Iten, Dan King, Jeff McClellan, Vicki McGillin, Sarah Naylor, Deb Noll, Lisa Peck, Kristi Quiros, Jess Ray, Richard Ribb, Janice Robinson, Kris Rugsaken, Steve Schneider, Kathleen Smith, Janet Spence, David Spight, Leslie Staggers, Peg Steele, Julie Stockenberg, Mark Vegter, Naomi Wright
• Interest Group Chairs: Marcia Bimmel, Beverley Childress, Justin Fithian, Bill Johnson, Lisa Keenan, Jodi Malmgren, Joe Murray, Kelly O'Sullivan, Leah Panganiban, CarolAnn Popovich, Marion Schwartz, Joan Shinault, Bobbi Thomas, Adrienne Thunder, Dana Zahorik
• Potential Interest Group Chairs: none attended
• Division Steering Committee: Beth Higgins, Lee Kem, Ila Schauer
• Absent: Sarah Ann Hones, Rhonda Sprague

I. Minutes Approval – The minutes for the CIG Division Meeting on October 17, 2007 in Baltimore were approved. Chairs were e-mailed a direct link to the minutes and asked to review them prior to the meeting.

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/ForLeaders/CIGD/Minutes/CIGDFall07Minutes.htm

II. Overview of Meeting Folders — Julia Wolf briefly reviewed the contents of the meeting packets.

III. Chair Roles and Responsibilities — overviews were provided on the following areas.

A. Chairperson Expectations – Victor

A brief overview of the online Commission Chair Expectations and Handbook was provided. Chairs were strongly encouraged to review this information on their own time. Interest Group Expectations have also been developed and posted for the benefit of Interest Group Chairs.

B. Reports (Post-conference & Annual)—Timelines, Relation to Strategic Plan, Budget Requests – Kathy

• The value of using volunteers for unit activities was emphasized.
• Chairs were encouraged to plan realistic goals that could be achieved within the next year.

C. Annual Commission meeting — Jennifer

This is an opportunity to solicit potential Chair nominees and volunteers to help with activities, network with colleagues, share and brainstorm ideas, identify critical issues, and encourage submission of conference proposals.

D. Conference Programming and Proposal Review — Kathy

Chairs were encouraged to provide comments for all proposals read. The more comments, the better according to the conference committee, to help them with the review process. This is especially helpful when additional slots are available, regardless of the topical area and separate from commission-sponsored sessions.

E. List serves and Network Etiquette – Julia

It was explained that it was NACADA policy that members had to personally subscribe to the open list serves managed by NACADA, and NACADA could not add members to these lists automatically. The issue of “Network Etiquette” was briefly discussed. Chairs were encouraged to utilize the CIG Division list serve to increase communication and networking among the chairs.

IV. Small Group Discussion #1 — Sharing of Best Practices as Chair ("What I Learned I Didn't Know & Wished I'd Known Before Serving as Chair") — sharing best practices of past activities, including conference sessions, articles written, incorporation of diversity and inclusiveness of membership, working with a unit steering committee, other?

Chairs shared the following ideas and comments:

• To solicit volunteers, distribute a list of volunteer opportunities within the commission and ask folks to mark their interest.
• Don’t bog down the commission meeting with business-related items.
• Hold small group discussions and encourage submission of conference proposals.
• Send a notice before conference to commission members – ask for resources to share with other commission members.
• Find ways for members to write for NACADA publications, including the Clearinghouse, Journal , and AAT .
• Produce a CD of resources related to your commission or interest group and tips for advisors to distribute to members.
• Create a wiki for your unit for related resources and discussions. Collaborate with other groups or associations for conference sessions.
• Organize small, informal dinner or social gatherings at conferences for unit members.
• Collaborate with other members as much as possible.
• Signing up to write a content article for Academic Advising Today is very useful for a small group.
• A steering committee can be very helpful in setting your goals.
• Time management is crucial.
• Use CIGD Fair to recruit volunteers.
• Use the CIG Division Reps, your assigned Steering Committee liaison, and the Executive Office liaison as resources.
• Become familiar with the information available on the NACADA web site.
• Use Haiku and go through the online leadership orientation program.
• Cultivate workshops, panels, articles, informal gatherings to get people together.
• Set realistic goals.
• Feels like a second job.
• Get ideas from others to get article done.
• Don’t volunteer in the middle of a term.
• Would have wanted to know the amount of paperwork and e-mail required.
• Would like to see other CIG reports.
• Would work harder to get volunteers.
• Get people together for social gathering — have sign-up at Fair and announce again at meeting.
• Ask members to do short reports at annual meetings.
• Save time for networking at end of annual meeting.

V. Applications for Change in Unit Status — Victor

A.  Applications for Commission Status — (vote by current Commission Chairs only) — each group

     petitioning for commission status presented the highlights of their applications.

1. Distance Education Advising (Bobbi Thomas, accompanied by Tyann Cherry and Linda Hambourger) — A brief discussion was held.
• ACTION: A vote was taken on this application for commission status. Application was approved.

 

2. Peer Advising and Mentoring (Dana Zahorik and Justin Fithian) - there was some discussion as to whether both peer advising and mentoring should remain combined in the same unit. Differences between peer advising and mentoring were discussed. It was mentioned that the term “advisor” should be used only for those with professional status as advisor. Also noted was that peer advising is supplemental to advising and that many full-time advisors began their careers as peer advisors. After several minutes of discussion, it was noted that the focus of the discussion should be on the application as submitted.
• ACTION: A vote was taken on this application for commission status. Application was approved.

 

3. The process for seeking commission status and applicable deadlines were reviewed for any current Interest Groups considering this step in 2009.

B.  Potential Interest Group Applications — Questions?

1. History of Academic Coaching (Eric White) — It was noted that there had already been discussion that this potential group should be folded into the Theory & Philosophy of Advising Commission rather than create a new group. Arguments were raised that the history would record the evolution of advising and was not theory-related. It was also mentioned that there are several types of history, including developmental and prescriptive.
2. Graduate-Level Courses in Academic Advising (Wes Habley) — It was suggested that there are already groups into which this topical area could be incorporated instead of creating a new group, such as the Advising Graduate & Professional Students Commission, or possibly combine with the Doctoral Students Potential Interest Group.
3. Doctoral Students (Sarah Keeling, Amanda Cuevas) — It was suggested that this group be combined with the Advising Graduate & Professional Students Commission. It was noted that this group would include Doctoral students of all disciplines, and not only those pursuing advanced degrees in academic advising. It was also noted that this group could provide support to help infuse research in advising. An argument was made that this group should also be open to master-level students.
4. Advising in Interdisciplinary Programs (Steve Pajewski) — It was mentioned that there had been some interest at last year’s conference in this topical area.

VI. Small Group Discussion #2 — Leadership Reports and Relation to NACADA Strategic Plan — implementation ideas, use of list serves, examples of future goals & activities that would meet mission strategies, possible collaborations among commissions and interest groups.

Chairs were asked to share how they addressed the NACADA Strategic Plan in setting their goals and activities. The following comments and suggestions were shared during the small group discussions:

 

• Use the list serve. Alert members to the information available and to other groups that could be resources.
• Work to increase diversity in participation of group activities and membership of the unit.
• Work backwards — create a wish list of activities and then tie them to the Strategic Plan.
• Some institutions are asking members to “not” volunteer so they do not have to attend the annual conference due to limited funding available. Emphasis should be placed on planning “electronic” activities, such as writing for NACADA publications.
• It was mentioned that submission of reports was a one-way street where the Chairs report but it stops there. It was suggested that Chairs be provided a global summary by the CIG Division Reps of what other Commissions and Interest Groups are doing. It was noted that the post-conference reports containing this information was already available to all Chairs online.
• Chairs should encourage collaborations and provide suggestions for joint projects.
• Chairs could take index cards to their annual commission or interest group meeting and ask for volunteers.
• An online forum was suggested for fostering a more collaborative atmosphere.
• List serves should be used to point people to other forms of electronic communication.
• Hold conference calls with your unit’s steering committee.
• Help organize a commission-sponsored webinar.
• Hold panel discussions to further collaborations.
• Investigate the use of a blog or wiki for commission-related activities, or possibly blackboard.
• Am relieved to find out that not all categories on report form have to be accomplished.
• Cross-collaboration would be good.
• Outline and sample plan are nice (good road map).
• It is difficult to get members to volunteer and help with goals.
• Keep it simple, then goals can be realized.
• Find out what people are working on within commission.
• Can write “ongoing” on some activities on report, when appropriate.
• Check in on goals and mission of group frequently.

VII. Activities Overview, Updates, and Logistics – Julia provided details to the chairs for the following items.

A.   Commission & Interest Group Fair details and logistics – Chairs can pick up display boards and push pins after the leadership dinner or at the conference registration area tomorrow. After the Fair was over, they can leave the display boards and push pins on the tables, but should take any display items with them that they wanted to keep. Chairs could keep the boards if they wanted to use them at their annual meetings.

Chairs were reminded that the Fair would be a great place for networking and recruiting volunteers for activities, such as readers for conference proposals, steering committee members, authors for newsletter content articles, etc. Signup sheets for individual social gatherings could also be provided.

B.   Annual Meeting Head Counts and Feedback Forms – Each chair was given a sheet labeled with the date, time and location of their annual commission or interest group meeting. Chairs were asked to take head counts at their meetings, write the number of attendees on the sheet, and return it to Julia before leaving the conference.

• Each Commission and Interest Group Chair is responsible for providing their own form if they want to gather feedback and other information from their members regarding the meeting agenda, unit activities, or other issues.
• Chairs were asked to forward the templates of their meeting feedback forms to Julia after the conference so they could be posted online to serve as samples for future use by other chairs.

C.  Newsletter articles and updates (Content articles, CIG activity updates) – Volunteers were solicited to write content articles for future issues of Academic Advising Today. Chairs were encouraged to collaborate with other units for these articles. The difference was explained between topical content articles written by commission and interest group chairs and updates on unit activities provided by chairs.

D.   Certificates for Presenters of Commission-Sponsored sessions – Commission Chairs received packets with printed certificates to give to the commission-sponsored session presenters, which could be done during their respective annual commission meetings or at the actual session prior to the beginning of the presentation.

E.   Commission Chair Signatures – Signatures were collected from the incoming Commission Chairs, which will be scanned and printed on applicable commission-sponsored session certificates next fall.

F.  Service to Commission Awards – Julia reminded Commission Chairs to request $50 in funds for this award in their post-conference reports if they planned to solicit nominations for this award in 2008.

 

G.   Elections in Spring 2009 – Chairs were asked to nominate members for any of the positions being elected, and the Commission Chair positions, in particular.

H.   One-on-One Meetings – Julia offered to set up individual meetings during the conference with incoming or continuing Chairs who might want to meet to discuss questions they may have, or ideas and activities planned for their units.

VIII. Small Group Discussion #3 — Review Process for Commissions and Interest Groups — should there be a review process?  What should be involved?  How should it be implemented?  Should some units be combined?

The following comments and suggestions were shared during small group discussions for this topic:

 

• The issue of proliferation was brought up, and that it can lead to the dilution of interest with so many choices available to members.
• It was suggested that commission-sponsored sessions be proportioned according to the numbers of members in each commission.
• Units should be assessed on how they are meeting their goals. Members should be asked to help assess if their needs are being met by a particular commission or interest group.
• Upper level leaders within NACADA should review the meaning and purpose of commissions and interest groups.
• It was suggested that the proliferation of commissions and interest groups has not really been caused by the growth of the NACADA membership. Too large of a group minimizes participation. However, we don’t want to be too specific either.
• Need to have a better process of reviewing proposals.
• Need to hold commissions and interest groups accountable. Perhaps have a 6-8-10 year cycle. Present qualitative documentation to show how that unit has met the NACADA Strategic Plan.
• If a formal review process is implemented, it should be for commissions only. The process for interest groups should be less formal.
• A unit’s needs may be met by having interest group status (less formal). Commission status is not for everyone. Each type of unit serves the needs of members in different ways.
• A possible 3-year review was suggested. [it was noted that a 3-year review process used to be in place before the reorganization of NACADA in 2002-2003.]
• It was suggested that questions should be sent to the CIGD list serve for feedback on this issue.
• Perhaps consider a cap on the number of groups allowed.
• More communication with/from NACADA — check in, one-on-one would be helpful to keep on track.
• Chairs should not personally be reviewed.
• Perhaps commissions should have co-chairs – be more structured with multiple leaders within each commission. Write up specific responsibilities for co-chairs, or for past chair, current chair, and chair-elect.
• CIGD Steering Committee members might do more outreach to their assigned groups.
• The growth of the CIG need to be more meaningful — large enough to be recognized but also small enough for people to engage. The topic of the groups must also be meaningful – reviewed by external group (Council).
• Regular review is needed. What is evidence of vitality (conference sessions, publications, list serve discussions)? Review every 6-10 years – need to protect commission from a problematic leadership. Should be a portfolio of materials.
• Let CIGD Steering Committee handle the reviews. Also need to contact the new chairs.
• This could be a major nightmare.
• If a poor assessment results, will it become a new group or get new Chair?
• Include all stakeholders. Get feedback on groups.
• Should some current commissions and/or interest groups be combined? Guidelines are needed.
• How many groups can be supported?

IX. Division Overview and Resources for Chairs

A.  Overview of NACADA Web Pages and Online Resources – Jennifer

The "art" and "management" sides of being a Chair were discussed. Chairs were encouraged to bookmark various online resources provided by NACADA.

B.  Online Leadership Orientation Modules and Chair Feedback — Victor

Chairs were encouraged to complete these modules at their convenience -- incoming chairs as well as continuing chairs. It was noted that a majority of the chairs had completed at least one module.

C. Board of Directors, Council, and Division Representatives – Victor

A brief overview of the association and its organization was provided as well as an explanation of how the Commission & Interest Group Division is represented on the Council and Board of Directors. The fact that the organization is member-driven from the grassroots level up was reinforced.

D. CIG Division Steering Committee structure & purpose– Jennifer

The members of the CIGD Steering Committee attending the meeting were introduced and thanked for their service. Chairs were encouraged to contact their assigned steering committee member when needing assistance or to discuss ideas.

E.  Role of Executive Office and Liaison – Julia

An overview was provided on the role of Executive Office Liaison to the CIG Division, which was explained in detail on a handout in the meeting folder. Due to the pending addition of a new EO staff position, the liaison was likely to change within the next year.

X. Small Group Discussion #4 — Recruitment of and Working with Volunteers — ideas for recruiting volunteers, organizing activities to involve volunteers, organizing and working with unit steering committees.

This discussion was not covered due to lack of time.

XI. New Business — No new business was brought forward for discussion.

XII.  Announcements

• Annual Town Hall Business Meeting — Friday, October 3, 5:45 - 6:45 p.m., Grand Ballroom D (Gold Level-East Tower).  Chairs were strongly encouraged to attend.
• Common Reading — Thursday, October 2, 2008, from 6:30-8:00 p.m. This is a new addition to the conference schedule. Chairs were encouraged to participate.
• Division Meeting Feedback – Feedback forms for the CIG Division meeting were distributed. Chairs were encouraged to complete these forms and submit them before leaving the conference, offering ideas for future CIG Division meetings and/or activities.
• Door Prizes— Copies of the 2nd edition of the Advising Handbook were given out as door prizes.

XIII. Steering Committee/Chair Meetings — CIGD Steering Committee members were provided an opportunity to

meet with Chairs of their assigned units.

XIV.  Adjournment / Leadership Dinner — A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.