IAC Meeting Highlights July 2010

Industry Advisory Council
New York
July 18, 2010

Present
Members: Moyra Doyle, Steve Higgins, Rachel Hutchisson, Craig Leach, David Lotz, Kathleen Pavelka, Tony Rotondi, Fred Weiss, Dan White, Fred Wilson, Cynthia Woolbright

Volunteer leader: Cassie McVeety

CASE staff: John Lippincott, Ron Mattocks, Lori Woehrle

Not present
Members: Bob Brock, Charles Shelley, Ed Sirianno

I. Call to Order and Welcome - J. Lippincott called the meeting to order at 9 am and welcomed members and others, who introduced themselves.

II. President's Report - Mr. Lippincott talked about the "state of CASE" in terms of revenue, expenses, member retention, and major activities. Some highlights:

• As of July 1, 2010, CASE has 3,365 institutional members (versus 3,372 on July 1, 2009)
• CASE has 19,294 professional members, versus 21,660 in FY2009
• CASE has 171 Educational Partners, versus 197 in FY2009. The drop is primarily among Bronze-level EPs.
• Conference registrations dropped in N. America to 5,575 (not including district conferences). But because CASE staff budgeted for 5,410, conference revenue was higher than expected for FY10.
• CASE ended FY10 with an operating surplus of $336,538.

III. IAC Liaison Report - K. Pavelka, IAC liaison to the CASE Board of Trustees, reported on the March and July 2010 CASE board meetings.

She said the central message she brought to the board in March was:

• Educational Partners are not feeling engaged/valued
• There are inconsistencies with how EPs are being treated

Horizon issue for the board - what should the role of the IAC be?

Ms. Pavelka encouraged Educational Partners to demonstrate commitment to CASE as part of their quest to be treated as full partners. She noted that there are 53 conferences annually managed out of the Washington office of CASE, and about half of these do not have sponsors or exhibitors.

Ms. Pavelka noted that there was a dues increase this year of about 3 percent.

She encouraged members to become familiar with the new CASE website. She noted that there is more access to research than in the past and asked whether for-profit organizations will be able to use the new CASE Benchmarking Toolkit. [Currently it is available to CASE member educational institutions only.]

C. Woolbright offered to share research she does with CASE for dissemination among members.

Ms. Pavelka said the CASE commissions will be collaborating on select issues in the future to reflect the member institution trend toward integration of advancement functions.

IV. IAC Chair - Mr. Lippincott adjusted the agenda to consider this item next. He told members he was considering whether the IAC needs a chair (an individual other than the CASE president, who has chaired the IAC meetings thus far). Members supported the idea of having an IAC chair, and D. Lotz motioned that F. Weiss be appointed as chair. M. Doyle seconded the motion.

V. Recognition of Service of Outgoing Members - Mr. Lippincott presented outgoing members with certificates of appreciation for service to CASE. Outgoing members are:

• Rachel Hutchisson
• Steve Higgins
• Craig J. Leach
• Kathleen E. Pavelka
• Fred Wilson
• Tony Rotondi

VI. Joint Meeting with District Chairs Council - Introduction by Curt Crespino , Vice Chancellor for University Advancement, University of Missouri - Kansas City, and chair, District Chairs Council. Joint session was intended to provide an opportunity to review ways to strengthen working relationships and to address ongoing challenges (including those identified below) with the goal of identifying constructive, mutually beneficial solutions for the future.

Educational Partners have expectations about how they will interact with the districts, but there are different terms, different pricing structures, and different rules of engagement among the various districts.

At past IAC meetings the group has identified and discussed challenges that EPs and other corporate sponsors face in working with the eight CASE districts. Some of those challenges include:

• Differing policies and procedures related to exhibitors and sponsors (e.g., discounts).
• Varying levels of recognition for the important role that EPs play (e.g., outreach at conferences).
• Inconsistent application of policies, whether district or national, regarding EP engagement (e.g., speaking at conferences).
• Turnover among and training of district volunteers who work with EPs (e.g., regular changes in points of contact)

The eight districts face challenges as well. These include:

• Increasing need to generate interest among and support from EPs, sponsors and exhibitors (e.g., as a conference revenue stream).
• Differing expectations among EPs, sponsors and exhibitors regarding benefits, procedures, and support from district volunteers (e.g., discounts).
• Differing expectations among members regarding the role of EPs in the district (e.g., as conference speakers).
• District or national policies and procedures that may be difficult to interpret and to implement (e.g., mailing lists).
• Turnover among and training of district volunteers (e.g., conference sponsorship chair).

A discussion of the above bullet points followed. Some highlights:

• Ms. Woolbright: the word partner suggests a partnership. EPs and district volunteers share the goal of advancing the profession. She noted that EPs do activities in their businesses that can help the districts inform their members.
• Bundling district activities: Mr. Lippincott gave the example of Ruffalo Cody, which wanted to bundle all its district activities. The company asked CASE to put together a package. That experiment didn't lead to a clear package in part because a package/bundle suggests the buyer receive a discount for making a large commitment. The districts want to be held harmless (not discount their activities). The process also was difficult, in that it was not possible to offer a single invoice for a bundle of purchases across all districts.
• Speaker requirements: Mr. Weiss asked whether there are policies and procedures with regard to speaking that can be made consistent across the districts. Mr. Lotz noted that some districts require EPs who are speaking to have a representative from an educational institution as a co-presenter, but some topics do not lend themselves well to having a co-presenter. Some IAC members urged the districts to adopt a more flexible approach.
• One district representative said the requirement grew out of frustrations when a speaker turned a speaking engagement into a commercial for his or her business. Liz Landry, chair of District IV, added that her district received conference evaluations that said the conference had "too many vendor presentations."
• Robert Sullivan, chair of District II said if his district gets glowing reviews on a speaker, because they are eager to deliver great content, they will bring the speaker back, regardless of whether they are an EP or practioner. They have seen in the past where EPs do great presentations with clients, he said. DII issues a call for proposals and has a selection committee. The district asks EPs to co-present with a practioner if it helps with the presentation. Co-presentation is not required, however.
• Ms. Landry asked whether other districts issue a call for proposals. (Not all do.)
• Mr. Lippincott noted that there are a limited number of slots available for speakers, and some speakers are better than others (whether they are EPs or practioners). The challenge becomes how to avoid going back to the high scorers all the time. Some EPs perceive that as favoritism, when it may be the result of evaluation scores.
• Peter Rooney, chair of District III, said his district involves more resource partners in one-day conferences than in the annual conference.
• Ms. Pavelka said that EPs prefer that sponsorship and speaking be separate issues.

Mr. Crespini recommended that a subset of IAC and DC to continue the conversation. Mr. Weiss agreed and Mr. Lippincott said he would work with them to see what the task force might look like. He said CASE would also look at guidelines for speaking.

VII. The joint meeting adjourned, and the IAC adjourned but planned a conference call to complete its agenda.

[Note: the following items were covered in a conference call, held on Monday, Aug. 2, 2010.]

Present on the call: F. Weiss, IAC chair; M. Doyle; R. Hutchisson; D. Lotz; K. Pavelka; D. White; Staff: R. Mattocks, L. Woehrle.

VIII. Associate Partner Pilot Program - Mr. Mattocks reported CASE's response to the attrition in Bronze-level EPs by developing a new EP level called Associate Partner, created for one-person firms that cannot afford the Bronze fee. Associate Partners would receive a smaller set of benefits at a lower annual fee.

Highlights of the discussion:

• R. Hutchisson asked whether CASE considered a similar program for companies of two- or three-persons. Mr. Mattocks said yes, and added that the question came up of where exactly to limit the access to the Associate Partner program. In part CASE wants to limit the number of current Bronze-level EPs that drop to the new level.
• Ms. Doyle asked whether CASE has considered a revamping of the Bronze-, Silver- and Gold-level EP packages in terms of number of employees or revenue. Ms. Woolbright also asked this question (via email.) Mr. Mattocks said the issue had been considered but rejected because EPs are free to select any level of benefits that are appropriate for their company and there is a cost associated with additional benefits at each level.
• Ms. Pavelka said she disagreed with the idea of pricing Gold, Silver and Bronze benefits based on number of employees or revenue because those packages are available to any company that would like them.
• Mr. Weiss asked whether an Associate Partner could add additional benefits al la carte. Mr. Mattocks said no, because an Associate Partner could upgrade to Bronze if the company needed additional benefits.
• Ms. Pavelka encouraged CASE to be careful to avoid inadvertently reducing income through the program. Ms. Doyle also asked whether CASE had done a financial analysis that includes some current Bronze affiliates downgrading to Associate Partner. Mr. Mattocks answered affirmatively.
• Ms. Pavelka noted that the benefit of having access to the InfoCenter essentially makes up the roughly $1,000 difference in price between the Associate Partner and Bronze-level programs. She said the value of InfoCenter access is about the equivalent to a part-time or full-time staff person.
• Ms. Pavelka questioned whether CASE should add a time limit to Associate Partner status, to require firms to upgrade to Bronze level within a few years. Ms. Hutchisson said no because a firm could be a one-person firm for many years.
• Mr. Lotz moved that the group endorse the Associate Partner pilot program as is. There were no objections.

IX. Email Marketing - Mr. Mattocks reported on a proposal under consideration by the CASE board committee on member services that would expand CASE's direct-response marketing opportunities to include email promotions. Under the proposal, a third-party vendor would rent email access to members whereby the third party would receive the promotion and email it out to members on behalf of the renting organization. Members would have two opportunities to opt out of such mailings. The CASE committee asked for feedback from the IAC in preparation for discussing the proposal at its November 2010 meeting.

Highlights of the discussion:

• Ms. Hutchisson expressed interest in the program and said Blackbaud does similar email marketing with other groups. Mr. Weiss and Mr. Wilson also said their companies would be interested.
• Ms. Pavelka noted that another membership organization allowed conference registrants to opt-out of email marketing and 80% did so.

Mr. Weiss said there was general support for the proposal from the IAC.

X. Joint Task Force with the District Chairs Council - Mr. Weiss asked the IAC for feedback on the size and configuration of the task force. He said his thought initially was that the task force should have three representatives from each group for a total of six. He added that the IAC team should include two current members and one former IAC member for continuity.

Highlights of the discussion:

• Several members suggested that the size could be up to eight, with four coming from each group. D. White recommended that the IAC team include a variety of company sizes.
• Ms. Doyle asked whether Mr. Weiss was seeking nominations, and nominated Ms. Hutchisson. Mr. Lotz and Ms. Pavelka nominated themselves. Ms. Doyle asked whether Mr. Weiss would serve on the panel because of his role as IAC chair. Mr. Weiss said he was not sure.
• Ms. Hutchisson asked whether in conjunction with working with the District Chair Council, the IAC would move beyond an advisory role to more of a standard setter with responsibility for communicating with the broader EP community.
• D. White noted that it would be a great topic for an IAC meeting.
• Mr. Weiss noted that he was not yet sure whether the task force would just be addressing the conference speaker issues that were raised or would be tackling broader topics.

Mr. Weiss adjourned the meeting at 11 am.