BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Baltimore Hilton Hotel
September 20, 2014
Poe B
DRAFT Minutes—October 26
Board members present: Tracy L. Cross, Michelle Swain, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Joy
Lawson Davis, Keri M. Guilbault, Catherine Little, Brian Housand, Kimberley L. Chandler, Dina
Brulles, Michael Matthews, George Betts, James L. Moore, III, Susan Dulong Langley
Board Members on phone: Jonathan Plucker
NAGC staff present: Jane Clarenbach, Nancy Green, Becky Mehringer, Karen Yoho
Saturday, September 20, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
President Tracy L. Cross called the meeting to order at 10:28 am.
1. Approval of Minutes
1.1 July 2014 Board of Directors Call Minutes
Motion by Brian Housand: to accept the minutes
Second: Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
Vote: All in favor
Discussion/Edits:
- Question about action required on the SIG and Networks. Is it in the right place in the
minutes? And was it added to either this meeting or next meeting’s agenda? The action
item was moved to 5.1.
- Two typos corrected in section 5.
1.2 Board Actions since September 2013
Tracy encouraged the Board to review the actions since September 2013 as a reminder about
what has been accomplished, and to inform new Board members about the types of issues that
are dealt with at the Board level.
Paula provided an update on an action item from the September 2013 Board meeting regarding
the Illinois court case. Paula will confirm the case was resolved and determine whether there is
an opportunity to address lessons learned.
Correction made: Removed repeat of 1st item on the Board actions list.
2. President’s Report
2.1 President’s Awards
Tracy will present two President’s Awards this year, recognizing two exceptional leaders from
Maryland. Nancy Grasmick, Vice Chairman, Board of Directors of the Kennedy Krieger
Institute; and Jeanne Paynter, Executive Director, Talent Program Solutions LLC. Tracy
presented some of the accomplishments of these individuals and why they were chosen for
these awards. The second award is the Ann Isaacs Founder’s Award. Tracy conveyed his
1
rationale for selecting Frances Karnes, professor emeritus at the University of Southern
Mississippi and founder of university’s The Center for Gifted Studies, this year, and talked briefly
about her accomplishments over a long career.
Jonathan Plucker was called to join the meeting
2.2 Executive Director Transition Plan
Tracy Cross began the discussion of the transition by outlining the initial steps in the current
transition policy—determining members of the transition team and selecting the search
committee. The search committee will ultimately make a recommendation to the board, which
does the hiring.
Tracy noted that Paula O-K, and George Betts are serving along with him as the initial group,
and they decided that it is best to hire a search firm to assist with the process. They have
interviewed two search firms already and will be speaking with another one next week. Tracy
found the first two interviews to be very enlightening. Some basic questions were asked from
how large the committee should be to who should be represented, which they hope to discuss
after the interviews. The search should take about 3-6 months from start to finish.
Tracy mentioned that one of the three companies is the company that Nancy will be
transitioning to in the future, and is also the company that was hired last time and placed Nancy
in her position as Executive Director of NAGC. Tracy wants to be transparent about this and did
not want to disqualify this search firm after being successful in the past. George also mentioned
that Nancy has not been involved with interviewing the search firms.
So far, Tracy has heard the search committee should be relatively small, 5-9 members, but on
the higher end of that would be better. After the search firm decision is made, the next charge is
to put together the search committee. Issues of timeliness and availability need to be taken into
consideration.
Tracy asked Jonathan what is important for a search committee based on his experience on the
committee previously when Nancy was hired. Jonathan shared that the committee was about 8
or 9 people and representative of the different views of the organization, and was a diverse
group who worked together well. He had a positive experience with the previous search firm
used because they were very well organized and it was not a large time requirement. The
committee received materials, took a few days to review it, met for a couple hours to discuss,
and then met in Washington, D.C. to meet with the candidates before a decision was made.
Jonathan observed that the search firm also really knew the non-profit, professional
organization world very well.
Most firms have a large vetting process involving criminal checks, credit checks, driving records,
and cyber checks and looking at each candidate’s presence on social media. Firms look at the
entirety of the person professionally and not just their resume.
Tracy asked what positions should be represented on the Search committee and the NAGC
Board offered the following:
- Representatives beyond higher education; a microcosm of NAGC members.
- Andy as a candidate from the national office because he deals with the finances.
- Someone with a perspective of how the organization has grown and changed, and with
ideas of the future of NAGC.
- Someone who has served on several committees or been a part of several networks.
2
-
Someone outside of NAGC, but with ties to NAGC such as a state director, affiliate
leader, past president, etc.
An outside stakeholder such as a publisher
Someone representing the parent constituency going forward.
It was noted that some of these people may also have overlapping perspectives. A comment
about encouraging an orientation to where the Board envisions the organization going for the
future would be helpful for those who serve on the committee.
Tracy will take this list and then go back to the Board to ask for possible recommendations.
Nancy added that, from her experience being the candidate, she didn’t have a huge job to
involve any disenfranchised groups when she was hired as the committee was very
representative of NAGC. Jonathan felt the previous search committee had a very deep sense of
the history of NAGC including knowledge about the previous executive directors and
represented the diversity within the organization.
George observed the important responsibility of communicating with the Board about which firm
was chosen, the work of the committee, etc. Tracy agreed and added that by the November
meeting, much more information, including a timeline, will be available. Email will also be an
efficient way to report to the board. The transition plan also gives some guidance with the
process.
The Board asked if a decision will be made in naming an interim. Tracy said there will be a
period of time in which there is no executive director. He will also present ideas on this in
November. Staff has already discussed what makes sense given the work that needs to be
done in those months. The Board also discussed that they would monitor budget implications of
the search process and management of the organization during the transition.
3. National Office Update
3.1 Parenting Engagement Proposal
Nancy set the stage by providing background on past decisions related to Parenting for High
Potential, suggesting that the Board is involved when significant changes to member benefits
are made.
Four years ago, PHP expanded to a hybrid model, adding four electronic issues to the four
printed issues. Karen Yoho added that once the four electronic issues were brought on, we
could share content with all members and other related education groups without additional
cost. However, given the small “open rates” of these online resources and stagnating parent
membership growth, staff and parent leaders acknowledge a continued lack of engagement.
Karen then presented the new PHP Publishing Concept, (see handout) which proposes four
print issues of Parenting for High Potential and a PHP2Go publication 10 times per year. The
PHP2Go can be distributed as a PDF, viewed on a tablet, or viewed on a smart phone.
Part of the rationale for this recommendation relates to the ever expanding influence of social
media, and the increased use of mobile devices in accessing content. Increasing parent
content from 8 to 14 times per year and more frequently on social media provides 24/7 access
to resources. Increasing frequency and creating a reliable timetable will ensure parents engage
more successfully with the publication.
3
Paula asked about the rationale for keeping the 4 printed issues. Karen responded that a need
remains for branding and positioning PHP, which occurs more effectively with a print
publication. The advertising revenue in these issues is also a factor. Preserving the quality of
the peer review process that new content goes through provides authors with some credential.
Printed copies can easily represent the organization and be shared with others.
Motion to approve the PHP2GO and encourage PECAB to explore new directions and the
future of PHP overall: Catherine Little
Second: Joy Lawson Davis
Vote: all in favor
Discussion: Members of the Board noted that advertisers may be attracted by the idea of
advertising in digital issues that people are looking at “on the go” via smart phones and tablets.
The Board encouraged PECAB to consider frequency and expressed openness to reducing the
number of print issue—just from a resource and cost standpoint. PHP is a strong member
benefit, so striking a balance between free and members-only content will be important. Tracy
noted that the Board will be looking for a full plan and resource impact to coincide with FY201516 budget approval and the March meeting.
5. Governance Report (Moved item to before break due to timing)
5.1 Position Paper Grid Update
Susan Dulong Langley reported that significant work has been done to clarify and define the
position paper and white paper development process over the past several years, resulting in
six approved position papers in the past year. Susan then provided a brief overview of this
process: the Governance Committee identifies experts in the field to create a draft. This draft
goes to the Governance Committee for review and edits. After this review, the original authors
may be asked to revise or the governance committee members may revise the document. A
revised position paper then goes to the Publications Committee, which solicits reviewers who
are knowledgeable about the topic to provide feedback. The Governance Committee uses this
feedback to produce a final draft, which then goes to the board for a vote. In the position paper
grid, Chris Nobbe, the previous Governance Secretary, provided an update on the position
paper topics and content, author(s), approval, and any follow up notes. Older position papers
are revised as needed, and new ones are generated from current emerging issues and NAGC’s
goals. The NAGC website includes guidelines regarding how position statements and white
papers are created.
Adjourned for lunch at 12:22 pm
Tracy resumed order at 1:07 pm
4. Network Proposal
4.1 Martin Jenkins Scholar Award Request
Tracy noted that the Board materials include background information on this issue, which came
before the Board this past March. Without final resolution from the Board related to the Award
request, the Special Populations Network and the GRACE SIG started to do some fundraising
on their own, which raised several issues worthy of Board consideration related to both the
Award and the process.
Joy provided more information and background about the proposal for a Martin Jenkins Scholar
Award. In a desire to accomplish the priorities outlined by NAGC’s diversity initiatives, the
Network and SIG leaders developed a scholar award to be given to a deserving student, if
4
approved. They created the proposal at the Convention in 2013 in Indianapolis, but did not have
the support to move this forward. Since then revisions to the proposal have been made.
At this same time, Tarek Grantham, chair elect of the Special Populations Network, invited
representatives from Morgan State University in Baltimore to attend a Special Populations
session during the convention. Tarek began soliciting donations to bring the students to the
convention. The application has been sent to school districts in the Baltimore area with a
deadline of October 3, and Joy believes they will receive responses this year. Funds for the
scholarship were solicited through Tarek’s 501(c)(3) organization, FACES (Family and
Community and Educational Services of America Inc.).
Tracy summarized the discussion by stating the two issues before the board: whether or not to
approve the Martin Jenkins Scholar Award itself and whether outside fundraising by individual
members in the name of an NAGC program is appropriate. Is the board willing to support a
student award, how much money would be involved, and is it ongoing? Historically NAGC has
not given student awards, with the exception of the Nicholas Green Award, when we received
specific funding for from an outside source. To continue discussion, a motion was made.
Motion: To approve an award for students in grades 6-12 or college named in honor of
Dr. Jenkins just for this year: Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
Second: Michelle Swain
Discussion:
In the Board discussion, the message and the value in the award were considered, as well as
the benefit to NAGC and our members, including the best way to execute this and the issue of
bringing in minors to the convention. The following questions were posed. Is inviting the award
winner to convention the best way to recognize a student? Would an award to a university
student to encourage them to get involved in a career in gifted education be more appropriate
for a national organization like NAGC?
For the current situation, the Board decided to withdraw the motion, and encourage the Special
Populations Network to give this “one-time only” award at the convention, and then take more
time to develop an award to honor the life and work of Dr. Martin D. Jenkins. When considering
how best to structure this, the Network would consider what’s most appropriate for a national
organization like NAGC. The board stressed that inviting a minor to attend the NAGC
convention would raise challenges, and encouraged recognition to occur via Skype or some
other way.
Motion and second withdrawn
It was noted that the money that has been raised by FACES will go directly toward the award to
cover the resource allocation with no involvement of NAGC funds.
6. President Elect Report
6.1 Policy on tributes to Past Presidents/NAGC Leaders
Motion to accept the new board policy on tributes to past presidents and eminent
individuals: Catherine Little
Second: Keri Guilbault
With the policy as amended to read: “If the questions arise on whether the individual is
eminent, the current President Elect will review the background and inform the NAGC Board of
Directors, who will determine if recognition at the NAGC convention should take place.”
Vote: all approved
5
Discussion: Is the criterion to define eminence meant to mirror the guidelines in the GCQ
obituary policy? This is not specified in the tributes policy. George would like to involve
individuals who were eminent in the field of gifted education and not necessarily just NAGC. The
question is who should decide the issue of the designation of “eminence”. Nancy suggested that
the president elect should play a role because the president elect is greatly involved in
determining sessions and events at the convention. How the person is honored may not be a
Board decision, but the Board can decide who is eminent in the field and will be recognized.
7. Past President Report
7.1 Implementation of Elections Changes
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius gave an update on the elections process and the changes made this
year by the Elections Committee. Some of the results that came out of the discussions of the
Elections Committee were to be transparent in exactly what they are looking for in candidates,
to change the application form to include exactly what the Committee needs to know, and to
have a way to make sure that the candidate has given them all the relevant information. Overall
it was a good experience, which gives encouragement to proceed with this process, with the
recommendation to put equal emphasis on 3 main areas of: involvement in NAGC, competency
in gifted education, and evidence of advocacy and leadership.
8. Treasurer’s Report
8.1 Budget Planning Timeline
8.2 FY 2014-2015 Budget Highlights
Catherine Little reported on the budget, noting that no budget actions are required at this
meeting since the fiscal year begins on September 1. She then reviewed the annual timeline for
approving the budget, which requires guidance and involvement from the Finance Committee,
who will work with staff to create the FY15-16 budget. Since we will be in Baltimore this year,
Catherine shared that the NAGC auditor will attend the November meeting to present the audit.
Board consideration of the FY15-16 budget will take place in March. Catherine reported that the
Board has approved a deficit budget for the past two years, even as emphasis continues on
diversifying and increasing revenue. Some ideas have included a membership campaign to
renew membership with a dues increase after this outreach, NAGC’s expanded development
and fundraising efforts, and convention registration fee increase. She shared that staff anticipate
doing better overall with the Convention this year and sponsorship is already higher this year
than projected. The Committee budgeted less for attendance than in Indianapolis because they
base it on an average of the past 3 years. November will provide a clearer picture of whether
convention revenue targets have been met.
9. New Business
Tracy called for new business of the Board. Upon hearing none, the meeting was adjourned.
Motion to adjourn: Brian Housand
Second: Michelle Swain
Vote: All in favor
6