Governance Task Force November 2018 Minutes

IRWA Governance Task Force Minutes November 28, 2018

by Carrol McCracken

1. Call to Order: Meeting was called to Order at 10:05 a.m., PDT by IGC Vice President, Sharon Slauenwhite, presiding.

  1. Roll Call:

    There was a roll call /introduction of all of the members on the conference call. They included:

    Region 1 Representative Ray Mehler, Region 1 Secretary
    Region 2 Representative Kim Heibert, President Chapter 36
    Region 3 Representative Carrol McCracken, Region 3 Secretary/Treasurer
    Region 4 Representative Ross Greene, President Chapter 52
    Region 5 Representative Pat Petitto, Past Int. Pres. & Advisory Council
    Region 6 Representative Matt Harris, Region 6 Secretary/Treasurer
    Region 7 Representative David Whitlock, Chapter 45, PDC Chair
    Region 8 Representative James Hardy, Region 8 Vice Chair
    Region 9 Representative Lee Hamre, Past Int. Pres. & Advisory Council absent, Region Chair Fred Easton in as a proxy

    International Executive Committee:
    Sharon Slauenwhite, Int. Vice President IEC Liaison/Chair Jake Farrell, Int. Treasurer
    Mark Rieck, CEO

    Regrets: Region 10 Representative Jenna Wood, Region Chair

  2. Agenda:
    The agenda was emailed out to GTF members twice, once in draft form a few days after our last call and again earlier this week. The second email also included Governance Task Force Terms of Reference document. No agenda additions were requested.

  3. Communications:
    It was confirmed GTF members received the minutes of the last meeting and those minutes were forwarded on to the Region Chairs by Carrol McCracken. All the members had talked with their regions and provided the following feedback about the GTF project:

    1. R5 -Pat indicated there are many of her region members with a distrust of past actions and they want a new approach.

    2. R9 - Fred mentioned his region wonders why we aren’t starting over as the current proposals are a failure. He feels we should start with a new needs assessment and Jake agreed. Sharon mentioned this could be an option a little later but the GTF focus will initially be on the IGC’s initial mandate.

c. R3 - Carrol’s region just wants more information in the future.

  1. R7 - David said he feels his region members don’t want action or changes and wonders

    why the current model wasn’t addressed. Region forums have been reporting back their need but lack of being informed. He said their discussions were lively but positive.

  2. R6 -Matt Harris asked if we have an agreement and direction on our scope:
    Sharon indicated we would initially review first stages which got us to Edmonton. We need to do some homework first and then see if we have any additional directions from the IGC.

  3. R2 - Kim said some of her region members were asking how she was chosen for the task force.

  4. R4 - Ross mentioned his region had similar messages as already conveyed by others. Varied reactions, positive and negative, to the project.

  5. R1 - Ray advised the level setting approach was a good first step.

  6. R8 - James advised the minutes had been discussed with Region leaders.

  7. There was discussion on how to communicate project progress to the members. The

    general feeling was that information shouldn’t be hidden, but rather, openly shared.

  8. Mark R. mentioned several other appraisal organizations that are working through

    changes in their governance with mixed results which may be sources for information. What he receives from them, along with any other white papers on the subject could will be passed along to the members of the group.

  9. Project Scope:
    There were questions about the scope and directions from IGC for the Task Force’s work and what level we should have for communication.
    The decision was to keep working on review of the history of how we got to this point, and then make decisions on actions in consultation with the IGC.

  10. Terms of Reference Document:
    Discussion of the draft document included:

    The question was asked: Why is a Terms of Reference document needed? It was pointed out this would be a guide for our meetings, useful information for proxies, and serves as a reminder of our mandate and expectations.

    RE: Structure/Membership:
    It was suggested a Region Vice Chair serve as a proxy for Region Chairs on the GTF.

    Re: Expectations of GTF Members:
    R3 -.Carrol questioned the word positively in the third bullet point on Member Expectations. He didn’t want to have this preventing debate or constructive criticism where warranted. The word will be changed to constructively.

RE: Sharing Information and Resources:
R7 David asked if we can move the Task Force webpage to a Public Page versus Private on the Member Network and after discussion and a poll, the majority agreed that the GTF Member Network Page and library resources will become a public page, accessible to all members. Mark R. will see that the change is made.

There was a discussion about communicating to membership - Jake F. suggested HQ could possibly send out a monthly GTF update from IRWA directly to members in an effort to be transparent and to let members know we have started to talk about this issue and hold nothing back. There were comments from a couple members that too many emails could be ignored and might cause information overload.

Mark R. said if the group had questions in the future about what people want for communication, simple polls may be helpful. He added it will be key to keep Directors informed so they can make future voting decisions.

Sharon S. reiterated the GTF needs to keep sending the meeting minutes out as done previously to the Region Chairs but to include Vice Chairs. The Association’s standard communication method dictates the Region Chairs/Vice Chairs should pass the information along to Chapter Leadership. The minutes also need to be sent to leaders in our International Chapters that do not have Region representation.

R7- David asked if the initial scope and goals document from Tecker International would be available? Mark R. said he could provide it to the group.

Re: Recommendations and Decision Making:
The group agreed to use Robert’s Rules of Order to conduct our calls.

Mark R. mentioned the goals and objectives of this group could change with time and with our decisions.

Sharon restated the goals mentioned in the Governance Project Overview and Actions as of August 15, 2018, document. She said the Task Force should end up providing recommendations to the IEC/IGC.

RE: Quorum:
There was a discussion on a quorum and it was recognized everyone may not be able to be on each call. Anyone not being on a call should provide at least 24 hours’ notice, if not 48, and try to get a proxy. It was also mentioned that not every IEC member would be participating on every call.

Sharon will work with Carrol to update the Terms of Reference as discussed and provide the revised version for the next meeting.

6. Minutes of October 24th meeting:
There was a motion and a second for the approval of the minutes from the October 24, 2018, meeting. The motion passed.

  1. Next Meeting:
    Sharon conducted a poll to see if the group would want to invite Mary Ann Marr as a guest at the next call, if available, to provide initial project history. The group approved that invitation.

    The Agenda will also include review/discussion of the GTF goals and include a discussion of past documents.

    It was agreed that on a go forward basis, calls will be rescheduled to start one hour earlier.

    Due to the holiday season, the next GTF meeting was moved to Wednesday, December 19, 2018, 9:00 a.m., PDT. If anyone needs to use a proxy, please confirm their attendance and notify the Chair. R2 Kim mentioned she may need to find a replacement as she has a standing meeting at the new time.

  2. The meeting concluded at approximately 11:27 a.m., PDT.

IDEAs Emails from October 25, 2018 and Response

Dear IGC members and RVCs,
The Education Task Force has been formed and is to be named the IDEAs Task Force, which is an acronym for Instructor Development &

Educational Assessment Task Force.
Attached are the minutes from the first IDEAs Task Force conference call. Please distribute minutes as you see fit.

We will be sending around a PowerPoint with information about the members of IDEAs, our purpose, and goals. I’m just waiting on some finishing touches on it before I can send.

Due to vacation, I might not make the IGC call next week, so I wanted to send this ahead of time as there are two key items for you in attached. They are listed below:

1. Official Recommendation:
The IDEAs Task Force recommends adding course content and materials evaluations below to the current instructor evaluations form

(or on a separate form) with a numeric rating and box for comments, similar to current Instructor Quality Survey:

  • ·  The course materials (manual, slides, etc.) were clear, provided valuable information, and helped me to learn the content

  • ·  The course content was up-to-date, valuable, and met my expectations for the stated Course Description and Course Objectives.

    Background information: the following are the current items listed on the Instructor Quality Survey, which is the only input solicited from attendees:

  • ·  Communication Skills:
    o Clearly communicates directions and ideas by delivery organized thoughts o Listens to audience and continuously checks for understanding

  • ·  Content Knowledge
    o Is a subject matter expert

    o Accurately answers questions and provides current content information

  • ·  Leadership

Dee Oakland <> 1/2

1/20/2019 Gmail - IDEAs - Instructor Development & Educational Assessment Task Force

o Demonstrates a command of the classroom

o Adjusts teaching style to meet participant needs

  • ·  Instruction

    o Uses all IRWA course content and material

    o Is compelling and enhances audience retention and application

  • ·  Methodology

    o Encourages participation in exercises, group discussions, case studies

    o Monitors progress and adjusts instruction where appropriate to enhance adult learning

  • ·  Behaviors (Professional Attitudes)

    o Is prepared and organized

    o Is committed to fairness and creates a mutually-respectful learning environment

  • ·  Would you take another course from this instructor?

    Given the current evaluation is for instructor only, we are unable to determine if complaints about course materials & content are just from the most vocal complaints or a real issue for the majority of attendees.

    2. Budget Request
    I would like to request up to $2500 to meet in-person at the Austin, TX joint forum.

    While we are still discussing what needs we might have in June (CLIMB and potential in-person meeting at conference) we would like to request a budget to meet in-person at the joint forum in Austin Texas. 3 out of 5 of us are already planning to attend, we believe Rakhshan can attend using discretionary staff travel budget, so we just need to cover additional night of hotel rooms, small meeting space, and Gordon MacNair’s travel costs. We will try to minimize this cost by negotiating free meeting space as part of the forum, ask employers to cover the additional night, etc.

    We’re just getting started, next up we plan to send out some instructor and chapter leadership surveys to better gage the validity of issues that have been brought forward.

    I also plan to hold some small group interviews with key individuals/groups. For example, I would like to talk with those that were key decision makers in dividing the IPDC, we need to assess what the drivers were in formation of the PIPE and determine if their goals are being met.

    Thank you!

    Fred Easton, Jr., PLS, SR/WA, R/W-AMC / Survey & GIS Manager



As you recall, I had sent a Region 7 concerns list to IRWA HQ.   I received the following responses from Jeff Jones, IEC President.  I ask that you review his responses (in bold italics below) and let us know comments from your Chapter and you.   For your convenience, I've also attached the Region 7 list of concerns and the first set of meeting minutes from the IDEAS (Education) Task Force.  I have requested additional information or the link where we can find updates from the IDEAS (Education Task Force) meetings. 

From Jeff Jones:
For the Items 1-3 in your email as you recall the IGC created an Education Task Force to look into our education program.  The task force has been meeting and will be looking into the issues in Items 1-3.
Item 4 - During the discussion that created the Education Task Force we talked a lot on the size of the group. We decided that 5 members was the appropriate size with the assistance of staff liaison.  That was part of the vote that was taken.
Item 5 - The "surplus" of funds.  There is no $188,000 surplus of funds in the IRWA budget.  This number, which I believe is actually $108,000, is the number difference between the program in effect prior to July 1, 2017 and the current ChIP Program.  The IGC voted unanimously at our June 10, 2017 meeting in Anchorage, AL to approve what is the current program. 
Item 6 - This item was also talked about at our September 2018 and I believe that the talk addressed chapters being notified. 
So Region 7 Chapter Leaders, I will update you when I receive more information, but wanted you to have the information received thus far to give you all time to discuss with your chapters and get feedback in time for our upcoming Forum.  I believe we have a valid list of concerns, and follow-through is needed to make sure you have been given the best information and understand why or why not resolution can be attained.  Thank you!
Dee Oakland, SR/WA