Meeting Highlights July 2012

Industry Advisory Council
Washington, DC
July 15, 2012

Present members: Elizabeth Scarborough (interim chair), Ann Meyer Abdi, Robert Burdenski, Arthur Criscillas, Moyra Doyle, Brenda Foster, Robert Gluck, Susan Washburn, William Weber, Dan White, Cynthia Woolbright

Not present: Ed Sirianno, Jon Moser, Richard Allen

Present CASE staff: John Lippincott, Ron Mattocks, Lori Woehrle, Paul Heaton, Amir Pasic

Present volunteer leader: Paul Sheff

Highlights

I. Call to Order, Welcome and Introductions - Mr. Mattocks introduced Ms. Scarborough as the interim chair for the July meeting. Ms. Scarborough was appointed to the one-meeting interim position by CASE Board of Trustees Chair Paul Sheff after former IAC Chair Fred Weiss stepped down from the IAC upon leaving employment at SunGard Higher Education.

Ms. Scarborough called the meeting to order at 8 a.m. and welcomed members, who introduced themselves. She noted three members who were attending their first meeting: Ms. Abdi, Mr. Criscillis, and Ms. Washburn. Mr. Criscillis, a partner at Alexander Haas, is filling the term of David King, president and CEO of Alexander Haas, who is unable to complete his term.

Mr. Mattocks said CASE will accept the resignations of two members, Mr. Moser and Mr. Allen, who effectively resigned under the IAC operating guidelines, having missed the past three meetings.

UPDATES

II. State of CASE - Mr. Lippincott noted highlights of and took questions on his "State of CASE" presentation, which had been made available to members in advance of the meeting.

III. Peer Review Pilot Program - Mr. Lippincott reported that last month a team of 3 volunteers conducted the initial pilot peer review.

Mr. Lippincott defined the Peer Reviews as follows: these are one-time engagements that consider

what an institution needs to do to take its advancement operation to the next level. He said he anticipates that CASE will conduct a modest number, such as half-a-dozen a year.

The Peer Review program was developed in response to members asking for reviews, he noted, and peer review appeared to be occurring in an ad hoc fashion even before the program was created. Members wanted CASE to establish a program with reviews by peers with more structure.

The pilot review was conducted for a regional public institution and it had an excellent team of reviewers, Lippincott said. They will issue their report in August. The team was complimentary of the preparation they got from CASE, he noted. The initial feedback was that the review was enormously helpful to the institution as they think about where they go from here, he added.

Mr. Gluck asked for more information on the Peer Reviews and how they are being marketed. He asked whether volunteer peer reviewers are paid (they are given a modest honorarium) and whether institutions pay for the Peer Review (they do).  Mr. Gluck said the program "sounds like a competitor" to companies that review advancement programs and that he would like to know what CASE will charge for the service.

Ms. Washburn said that there is precedence for the program in CASE on Your Campus, a program that was launched in the 1980s. She said half the time it led to more consulting work. For senior-level advancement professionals, it was a great professional development opportunity.  Half the time the institutions couldn't afford to spend more on a full consulting engagement. "I think it's a great idea," she said.

Mr. Mattocks noted that one of the protocols requires that if you are a peer reviewer you cannot use the opportunity to pick up consulting work for yourself.

Mr. White asked whether peer reviewers are practioners (yes).

Mr. Weber commented that the issue of the peer review program and not asking the IAC for feedback on it opens CASE up to complaints. He said it speaks to the question of what is the role of IAC.  Mr. Mattocks reminded the group that the role of the IAC is advisory, and that peer review had been vetted extensively with discussion at three different board meetings, three commission meetings and two IAC meetings.

IV. Center for Community College Advancement - Mr. Heaton, director of the CASE Center for Community College Advancement, addressed programs and activities that the center has developed in its first year of operation. During its first year, community college membership in CASE increased from 208 to 306 institutions. A significant part of that gain is attributable to a partnership with the Network of California Community College Foundations and the Foundation for California Community Colleges, he noted.

CASE will hold its Inaugural community college advancement conference in October in San Diego. The conference, which is just starting to be promoted, has about 50 registrations so far.  Among other projects, the center has created a webinar series on a variety of advancement topics and developed two surveys, one on alumni programs and the other (called "Mind the Gap Survey") on the differences in perception about advancement between campus CEOs and advancement vice presidents.

V. CASE Board of Trustees Report - Ms. Scarborough, who also served as interim liaison from the IAC to the CASE Board of Trustees, reported on the July board meeting.  She said IAC members would be interested in one discussion about a small number of for-profit institutions that have appeared on the CASE membership roster in recent years.  The board concluded that the mission of CASE is to serve nonprofit institutions and that in keeping with the bylaws for-profit institutions cannot be members.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

VI. Mission/purpose of the IAC - Ms. Scarborough began the discussion by reviewing "The IAC: Mission and Key Operating Guidelines" document. She noted that the second paragraph, list of four bullet items, were the essence of the mission:

• Provide advice and counsel on broad industry trends and their implications.
• Provide advice and counsel on matters related to gift reporting, data collection and reporting, various communities of practice, and similar issues.
• Provide advice and counsel on CASE's relationship and opportunities with for-profit companies.
• Provide advice and counsel on research opportunities on advancement theory and practice.

Ms. Scarborough asked the panel to what extent do they feel the IAC is fulfilling its mission.

Ms. Foster commented on bullet three. She said she was not familiar with IAC before she was invited to join the council. She wondered whether other Educational Partner companies are aware of the IAC and said awareness might help them feel more connected to CASE because they might feel they have a representative body.

Ms. Scarborough said she was not aware of the IAC prior to her appointment.

Mr. Criscillas asked what CASE is doing in the course of the meetings to advance or address the IAC's mission. He asked about the nature of the discussions: awareness versus assistance?

Mr. Lippincott noted an example of when the IAC has assisted with an issue. He said there were long-standing frustrations with the Educational Partners and the CASE regional Districts, in part because of the diversity of policy and culture among the eight Districts. The District Chairs Council and IAC assembled a task force that resulted in the elimination of "pay to play" requirement at District conferences, Mr. Lippincott said.

Ms. Woolbright said her tenure on the IAC marked the first time she been on a committee where she has not been asked to do anything. In her three years on the IAC she said she has not felt that was sought. She said practices have not changed within the Districts. Ms. Woolbright commented that she still has eight different Districts to work with and her participation at the District level has not changed.

She added that now that her three-year term is expiring, she feels she is at the point where she can really contribute.

Mr. Weber asked what it would take to increase the number of Educational Partner companies to 263 (the largest number of Educational Partners, which was achieved in 2009).  The IAC should be considering what the benefits are to becoming an Educational Partner, he said.

Mr. Mattocks noted that the mission document does not say the IAC is a representative body. The mission is "advice and counsel," he said. According to the CASE bylaws, Educational Partners, as for-profit organizations, are not voting members.

Mr. White said the unstated reality is time. The IAC meets twice a year, and he served on the task force. The question is how much more time would be required of IAC members if they took on more projects? When he was asked to join the IAC, he assumed he was coming in with diverse group that met twice a year.

He said that staff presentations diminish the amount of time available for discussion. IAC members were asked to read the "State of CASE" report in advance. The whole CASE organization has always been built on soliciting feedback, he said. "No one says that they have to agree with us," White said.

Ms. Scarborough suggested that the chair of the IAC could take responsibility to poll members in advance to identify trends, and then discuss those trends in the IAC meetings.

Ms. Doyle asked whether any members of the IAC are not Educational Partners. Hearing no, she asked whether the IAC is a de facto representative body of all Educational Partners.

Ms. Scarborough noted that members are neither voted in nor representative of the full range of types of organizations within the Educational Partners program.

Ms. Doyle said a similar body exists within CASE Europe, but a difference is that the terms are not limited.  She noted that one of the most interesting meetings for her was around discussions about the impact of the economic recession.

Ms. Scarborough said she assumed her role as a member of the IAC was to bring in more Educational Partner companies.

Mr. Criscillas said in a derivative way, members of the IAC are doing that. If service levels are improved, that will help CASE retain Educational Partner companies, he said.

Ms. Woolbright said she would personally benefit from hearing from members about what is going on in their respective areas.

Ms. Scarborough proposed getting additional feedback offline on how to best structure the IAC meetings to make them the most productive. She said she would email IAC members open-ended questions to garner ideas.

VII. Educational Partner Guidelines - Ms. Woolbright led the discussion. She, Mr. Weber, and Ms. Foster drafted a document to address standards of behavior/principles adapted from CASE Europe's "Principles for For-Profit Companies."

She noted the concept of "fitness for purpose" as the key criterion for determining who will speak at a conference, regardless of whether he or she comes from an Educational Partner company or educational institution.

A discussion followed regarding whether speakers who represent Educational Partner companies should be required to have a co-presenter from an educational institution.  This issue had been debated at length over the past year by the IAC/District Chairs subcommittee, but clearly the Woolbright/Weber/Foster subcommittee that prepared these guidelines felt that the issue had not been adequately resolved.

Ms. Foster said she has been in sessions where speakers were selling their services; Ms. Woolbright said she had not.

Ms. Scarborough noted that other professional associations also require that company representatives have an association member co-present with them.

Ms. Abdi noted that it can be a financial burden on clients to ask them to be a co-presenter, because of travel and lodging expenses.

Ms. Doyle recommended deleting the three-year ban on speaking if a speaker promotes his or her company in a talk.  Mr. Mattocks agreed that this should be deleted as it is the role of management not the role of the IAC to deal with the violators.

Mr. Burdenski said that when you are required to partner with an institution, the presentation becomes a case study.  He said one of the reasons he earned a Crystal Apple (an award given to speakers with consistently high ratings) is because he speaks about a range of institutions.

The guidelines included a recommendation that educational partners be allowed to enter the as applicants for CASE awards.  Mr. Mattocks indicated that this is problematic because any entry by an educational partner is actually work product owned by the client, i.e. the CASE member institution.  This issue will be referred to the CASE awards architecture subcommittee for further review.

Finally, Mr. Mattocks indicated that the recommendation in the guidelines establishing a dollar threshold and multiple bid process for CASE should be deleted as that is a discussion to be decided by board policy and management operating guidelines, clearly not the role of the IAC.

VIII. Recognition of Outgoing Members - Ms. Scarborough recognized the service of outgoing members Ms. Doyle, Mr. White, and Ms. Woolbright.

Mr. Mattocks noted that CASE would solicit nominations from IAC members for an IAC Chair and Liaison to the CASE Board of Trustees via email.

IX. Adjournment - Ms. Scarborough adjourned the meeting at 10:15 am.