Business Meeting II
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Attendees: Nancy Miller, Pat Alt, Ashley Love, Irena Pesis-Katz, James Swan, Steve Wallace, Susan Miller, Daniela Friedman, Cindy Bryant, Jan Warren-Findlow, Pankaje Desai, Denys Lau, Daniel Meng, Fox Wetle, Karen Peters, Rick Fortinsky
I. Welcome and introduction: Susan Miller opened the meeting and welcomed all. She reported that APHA will be recognizing our 30th anniversary at the awards ceremony tonight. She also reported that the raffle and auction took in just under $3,000.
II. Governing Council report: Jim Swan reported that the following people were elected:
Carmen Rita-Navarez, President-elect
Executive Board: Diana Conti, Joseph Telfair, Susan West Marmagas (sp?)
Nominating Committee will be made up of the top three vote-getters.
Resolutions – Seven were on the consent agenda
1. End of Life resolution: 58 percent voted to leave out the piece about disabilities, and today the council voted for a moratorium on the policy.
2. Late-breakers: All passed except for “Access for Medical Care for Gaza Residents”, which failed. The GHS late-breaker got postponed to the regular process for next year (they need to be submitted by February).
3. The 2010 Annual Meeting in Denver will have the theme: “Social Justice, Public Health’s Imperative”.
III.2008 Scientific Sessions and Awards:
Sessions were well-attended. We tried hard to group topics to be sequential. There was a Task Force on Aging session today which wasn’t co-sponsored, partly because it isn’t clear if we can cosponsor sessions. There will be a program planners meeting tomorrow to plan for 2009, and this question will be raised.
Jan raised the problem about symposium submissions. Submitters need to tell her ahead of time so that she can focus the panel around a symposium. We are the only section who proposed them.
Discussion followed about potential sections to co-sponsor panels with, including Injury Control, Emergency Service/Preparedness, and Vision Care. If we co-sponsored panels, might be able to get additional slots.
Awards: Irina pointed out that for the non-doctoral awards we only had three papers submitted. And the international award had only one. There was some discussion of how to market the awards better, and to make sure we use them every year, since we’re being funded for travel as well as the award itself. In the past, we did an awards portfolio, describing what they are about and the amount available, etc. We need to get more students involved, through their student groups and their advisors. One way would be to get an article in The Nation’s Health about the awards. There was also some comment on the session having too much detail, and starting to drag. There were various views on the best approach, including: not reading abstracts; only reading abstracts for the awardees, not the honorable mentions; or reading a much abbreviated description of the papers. This should be discussed during the next conference call.
IV. Webinars:
Susan Miller suggested that we use these, particularly as a way to get new members, especially students. Grant writing and publishing were two topics which were suggested. PJ (a student from the University of Illinois at Chicago) volunteered to get information on how webinars could be done (through APHA or other means). At the next leadership call there will be further discussion of possible topics and of PJ’s findings. Another suggestion was to get someone from NIA on a webinar (i.e., Sid Stahl) who could talk about NIA proposals/funding. We could offer more than one a year, and that they would be free to GHS members (as a member benefit), and possibly to non-members at a charge.
V. Membership:
Daniel Meng reported further on his survey, distributing a draft handout. He acknowledged the wonderful volunteers, and asked which committees could use those who indicated interest in greater involvement. There was discussion of the need to follow-up with new and lapsed members, and about those who were not on the listserv (Steve indicated that they would be added). Susan Miller indicated that she would be thinking about roles for those wishing more involvement, and suggested that one place they could serve would be on the membership committee to help with the follow-up of new and newly lapsed members.
There was discussion about how best to share the results of the survey. One possibility would be to follow up with new members before abstracts are due, and also reminding them about the student awards. The membership committee and section councilors could contact new members in their regions of the country.
VI. 2009 Planning:
Ideas for the program were discussed, including starting with ideas from this year. What topics had no papers proposed? Chronic disease self-care, for one.
We also need a booth coordinator for next year, perhaps one of those offering to be more involved?
VII. New Business:
1. Shortage of travel dollars: It was suggested that a cash prize could go to the student winner(s)’ department so that the institution could use the money for travel funds. It was also suggested that members could donate frequent flier miles to be used by GHS members/students lacking travel funds. Again, we’ll need to discuss this in the next conference call.
2. Co-sponsorship of sessions: Susan Miller will check further to see what the other sections had in mind (i.e. whether we would give up one of our slots or they would use theirs). Jan mentioned how difficult it was to jointly present sessions, and Ashley Love offered to find out more about it at a meeting later in the week. If it is feasible, Jim Swan would like to be involved in something related to disaster preparedness, and he has students interested in it.
3. The executive group needs to be talking about potential candidates for Chair-elect and other positions. Susan will run the nominating committee.
The meeting was adjourned with thanks to all at 8:00 p.m.