Present:
Pat Corrigan (Moderator),
Jean Campbell,
Matt Johnsen,
Nancy Erwin,
Linda Dunakin,
Greg Warren,
Diane Cote,
Sarah Lickey-Diwan,
CarolMussey,
|
Crystal Blyler,
Ruth Ralph,
Helen Minth,
Sally Rogers,
Brian McCorkle,
Kathryn DeForest,
Bonnie Schell,
Donna Cook (Notetaker)
Yvette Sangster
Greg Teague |
Agenda:
Roll-call
Listserv reduction – Jean Campbell
The CC is trying to clean up the listservs to make them
more productive. The plan is to
eliminate some unused lists, such as tech developer, tech help, etc.
People who post on the Logistics or Research listservs often have to
switch over so that people who are interested in those discussions and/or need
to participate can do so on the Steering Committee listserv. Sometimes half of
the discussions are on one list and half are on another.
Sometimes there are parallel discussions that have to be reposted.
Jean recommended that we no longer use the COSP Logistics or the COSP
Research listservs, and that the SC listserv be used for that business.
Greg T. said the Research Committee is just getting ready
to talk about the baseline analyses, and he wonders if the whole SC wants to
know about the technical aspect of variable reduction, etc. Yvette said if the
topic title is in the header as Crystal suggested people who are interested
could read it. The point was made that it is important that people should not
“bundle” topics.
Consensus was reached about eliminating the COSP
Logistics and Research listservs, and posting to the SC listserv.
If a person is not interested in the topic they can delete it.
SC Meeting facilitation supplement – J. Campbell
The September F2F SC packets contained an ongoing 3-step
facilitation plan. Step1 is the building of a leadership team which includes the
Feds, CC, and the SC Chair to further develop Step 2 which is to have a SC
retreat and the agenda prior to the Florida F2F meeting.
Step 3 is to decide at the retreat what kind of ongoing role there would
be for the facilitator within the next two years.
Jean explained that the goal of the retreat was for
teambuilding and for building collaborative relationships.
The retreat could take place prior to the Florida F2F. An alternative
plan proposed by the CC is to have a separate retreat to be purchased by the CC
at another time and location. The
retreat would be in a resort like place with food and lodging, and would be paid
for by the CC. Jean announced that there is sufficient money to cover the
expenses for the two SC members per site and the CC staff.
Ruth made a motion to have the retreat at another time,
not during the Florida F2F.
Those who favored having the retreat at the Florida meeting
pointed out that one meeting was easier to fit into their schedules than two
separate meetings. Another point
was that more people could come to the retreat if it was held in Florida because
they would already be there for the F2F. Those who favored a separate retreat
objected to the two extra days away from home and the hardship that would be
inflicted on their families, the site employees, and themselves during their
five-day absence.
Sally R. wondered if a retreat and teambuilding was a
worthwhile way to spend funds, or if there were better ways to spend the
resources. Jean clarified that this
supplement, supported by the Federal representatives, is a specific proposal.
The supplement that the CC was awarded is for the plan designed and developed by
the CC that includes Dave Munz. The supplement is a result of additional money
to make things better, and the CC is making a commitment of additional
resources. Crystal stated that we need this retreat because this project has
been exhausting, and we need a facilitator. She
said the retreat would be just one of the steps, as this needs to be an ongoing
project. Pat asked that the CC post some of these points on the freedrive.
Consensus was
reached that there will be a retreat.
Ruth’s motion to have a retreat at a separate time and location was
seconded by Jean. Pat added a
friendly amendment to hold the retreat in Virginia or Maryland. Seconded by
Jean. No objections, motion passed.
The CC will let the SC know the date and place of the
retreat after Thom and John identify properties for availability of dates.
Jean added that it would be hard to have the retreat before early Spring.
Yvette expressed concerned about the makeup of the
leadership committee for the facilitation of the retreat.
She suggested that the CAP Chair be added to the planning team. Jean said
this is an issue for the SC since the CAP is a subcommittee of the SC. The plan
was for the SC Chair to represent the CAP.
Jean explained that members of the planning team had to come to meetings
with the facilitator, so they would need to look at available resources. Since
the CAP has co-chairs, Matt suggested that only one of the co-chairs represent
the CAP due to the size of the group. The
SC decided to include both CAP co-chairs as part of the planning team with the
CC supporting travel for one of them.> Yvette
responded that excluding the CAP from the planning processes, and not soliticing
their input are indicative of the ongoing problems between the CAP and the SC,
CC, and the Federal representatives.
Pat, Crystal, Sally, Bonnie, Jean, Dave Munz will get back to the CAP
with the plans for the retreat.
Due to time constraints, Pat asked Sally R. to post the
Logistics study blind report to the listserv.
Sally mentioned the following two updates: 1) she would like comments on
the definitions she posted to the listserv, 2) the SC needs to discuss the pros
and cons of recruitment strategies. She asked SC members to review the document
written and posted by Mark Salzer regarding the pros and cons of recruitment
strategies. The Logistics Committee thinks the SC needs to discuss these points
and bring them to closure. There
are sites that want to start correcting what they see as their low enrollment.
Sally said the sites can’t wait until the October 27 SC call to make a
decision. The SC was reminded that
there will be a call on recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention on
Friday, October 6. Jean emphasized that the object of that call is to strategize
not promote. If motions grow out of
this discussion, they will be posted on the listserv.
Use of the COSP
brochure – Sally Rogers
Sally R. asked for further clarification as to when and
where the brochures could be disseminated. Some people understood that there
were restrictions about distributing it. Jean said that in the PI
teleconference, sites were given the go ahead to distribute the brochures with
no restrictions. People thought it
wouldn’t cause any problems in terms of bias, and also that it might be
helpful in recruitment to have people know that they are part of a national
study. According to the notes from
the PI call, the brochure is not to be distributed locally, and this issue is to
be referred to the SC for a call.
Ruth Ralph recommended that brochures be distributed
without any restrictions. Second by Sally Rogers. Motion passed with no objections.
Sally R. asked about funneling requests to CC and PIs. Jean
asked that people not contact R.O.W. General
questions or problems about the COSP should be referred to Matt Johnsen, Rita
Adkins, or Jean Campbell. Do not go
through ROW people. When a plan has
been developed as to how requests are to be handled in general, it will be
posted on the listserv.
The following agenda
items were tabled for discussionFollow-up to work
with Jane Stallman – Pat CorriganWeb-page progress report – Jean CampbellTeleconference budget feedback – Jean CampbellSite visit protocol and reporting changes – Jean Campbell
5400
Arsenal Street