SRP 2013: Executive Board Phone Conference II

Society for Research in Psychopathology

Executive Board Phone Conference

Jan 28, 2013


11 am to 12:05 pm


Present: Current President Deanna Barch, Past President Lee Anna Clark, President Elect Ann Kring, Treasurer William Horan, Secretary Sheri Johnson, FABBS representative Gregory Strauss, Program Chair Alexandra Burt, Executive Board Members at Large: Elizabeth Hayden, Jutta Joormann




1)    Changes to Mentorship Award: It was proposed that evidence of mentorship include undergraduates who have going on to professional careers in psychopathology research.


By a unanimous vote of the executive board, this proposal passed.


2)    Discussion of what Early Career and Mentor awardees receive (or should receive) and how to cover this financially.


Dr. Clark prepared a document summarizing awards that SRP currently grants.

Summary of SRP Awards



Smadar Levin


Early Career Mentorship Nominator










1 h. address

Sunday poster

30 min. talk


Covered in the year the talk is givenb


Next yearb


Both yearsb

Award Yearb Award Yearb Award Yearb

Next yearb




We currently cover award expenses (as well as speaker expenses) through dues, and we currently receive dues from about 135 full members per year.


Dr. Clark suggested that we provide complementary registration for early career and mentor awardees at current meeting and hotel at the next meeting.


After discussion, members of the executive board expressed a preference for continuing to fund award costs through dues payments.  Dues payments can only be increased by a vote of the membership at the annual meeting.  The executive board agreed that they will raise this issue for membership vote at the next annual meeting.


No other changes to awards were raised for discussion.



3)    Website Development:


The website development committee has been piloting a new platform and the secretary has been modifying it.  There are some minor hurdles in using the new system.  Dr. Johnson has been unable to add links to feature new pages.  Drs. Barch and Kring volunteered to try implementing recommended procedures, and to coach Dr. Johnson through the process. There is also a fair amount of content to be edited and updated, and Dr. Barch volunteered use of her staff time to help with those changes if need be.


Summarizing email discussion, Dr. Barch noted that all seemed to be in favor of trying a solution such as Open Conference for managing conference submissions and registrations. It remains feasible to proceed with our current system if we find barriers in using Open Conference or similar solutions. Although these solutions are more economical, it will mean that we lose ability to address some more specific needs of our organization, such as gathering CVs for the CE application, collecting student requests for members to attend their posters, and a more streamlined process for gathering membership application materials and letters.


By a unanimous vote, the executive board authorized Dr. Burt to hire staff (at a cost of $500-1000) to facilitate data collection and communication goals that will not be automated.



4)    Program Committee:  Any issues from program committee?


Dr. Burt noted that we will need to be able to receive conference submissions by March 1st, and so reminded us that we need to finalize our web plans for this process.


The program committee has considered various options for gathering CVs and conflict of interest declarations from speakers.  Of the different options, the executive board expressed a preference for recruiting these materials at the time a talk is accepted.  Speakers will receive an email noting that they have two weeks to forward these materials, and that presentations will be scheduled only for those who forward the materials.


Dr. Barch followed up with Dr. Eack, who anticipates open conference being ready by March 1.



5)    Definition of Events That Need Formal Board Motion and Examination of Whether a By-Laws Change is Need:


Dr. Barch noted that the bylaws are not entirely clear when the executive board must formally vote on a proposal.  Procedures are quite clear when a potential change to the bylaws is considered.  Dr. Clark noted that bylaws are often structured to provide some flexibility and adaptability.  Heuristically, Dr. Barch suggested that we obtain a formal vote of the executive board on any issue that involves demands on SRP funds, creation or change of an SRP committee, or creation or change of an award.

Dr. Johnson agreed to raise a need for a formal vote when such issues were brought to the attention of the executive board.



7)   Change to Bylaws Process:  Is there an option for changing the Bylaws totally electronically so that we do not have to wait for the in person meeting for issues that don’t seem to require major discussion?  It is actually not clear to me that we don’t already have a process in place for this, as it says that proposals for amendments that have been approved (by whom?) under one or other of these provisions shall be submitted by any technology currently used by membership?


Current Bylaws Change Process:

      “With the exception noted below, amendments to or repeal of any of these By-Laws may be proposed by any member or group of members of the Society in good standing by submitting such proposals to the Executive Board through the Secretary. Proposals for amendment submitted by fewer than ten members of the Society shall be considered at the next regular meeting of the Executive Board, and will be submitted for a vote of the membership only if endorsed by the Executive Board. Proposals made by ten or more members will automatically be submitted to the membership as a whole at the next annual meeting of the Society.

Proposals for amendments that have been approved under one or the other of these provisions shall be submitted by the Secretary to the membership using any technology that is currently widely used by the members within sixty days of approval. Upon request and provision of a post office address or fax number or other appropriate number, a member may be sent a paper ballot. A two-thirds vote of those casting ballots shall be required for the adoption of an amendment. Thirty days shall elapse between distribution of the ballots and counting of the votes. For the purpose of adoption of amendments, a quorum of the Society shall consist of twenty percent of the membership. Amendments that are adopted shall go into effect upon notification to the membership by the Secretary, such notification being required.”


The executive board discussed the idea that it is clear that any change to the bylaws that are raised by 10 or more members must be discussed with the membership at the next annual meeting, and that any change to dues must also be discussed with the membership at the next annual meeting. The bylaws are less clear about whether other potential bylaw changes can be decided by email or must await the membership meeting at the annual conference. After discussion, it was agreed that the bylaws could be changed by email, unless they involved questions of dues, which required in person discussion at an annual meeting.  Thus, Dr. Barch will draft a memo to the membership proposing these changes and allow 30 days for feedback. If the feedback suggests that these should be voted upon formally, then Dr. Johnson will send a formal online vote.



9) FABBS information

Dr. Strauss noted that FABBS would like to receive our early career award nomination by Thanksgiving 2014.  Given this, it was agreed that the Early Career Award committee from 2013 should make the recommendation. Dr. Barch agreed to communicate with the committee chair (Dr. Hetrick).  Dr. Hetrick has agreed to do so.


Dr. Strauss informed the executive board that for the FABBS “in memory” and distinguished scientist awards each require the support of 10 donors who would collectively provide $2000.  The board decided not to pursue these award nominations.


11) Meeting planning: Colorado

Dr. Mittal has asked Dr. Barch whether we have flexibility to hold the conference in Jan or Feb, as one of the best venues only has availability then.  EB members raised concerns about a Jan or Feb conference due to concerns about the potential for weather-related travel disruptions.



Being out of time, the meeting adjourned, and the discussion of the minority travel award will begin by email.