Oak Ridge Reservation: Guidelines and Procedures Assessment Work Group
Guidelines and Procedures Assessment Work Group
June 14, 2004 - Meeting Minutes
Members attending: Karen Galloway (Chair), Peggy Adkins, Susan Kaplan, James Lewis, and Barbara Sonnenburg
ATSDR Staff attending: Bill Taylor
ERG Contractor: Liz Bertelsen (phone)
Karen Galloway called the meeting to order. Ms. Galloway made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 27, 2004, GPWG meeting. The meeting minutes were approved.
The purpose of the meeting was to revise the ORRHES bylaws and to prepare descriptions of each new work group proposed by GPWG.
Discussion of Bylaws and New Work GroupsFacilitator: Karen Galloway, Chair
Karen Galloway explained that at the last ORRHES meeting, the GPWG presented recommendations to the subcommittee. ORHHES voted and approved GPWG's recommendation to change the work group names. In order to facilitate the name changes, GPWG needed to revise the ORRHES bylaws. The subcommittee "tabled" GPWG's other recommendation until the work group revised the bylaws. According to Ms. Galloway, GPWG was asked to draft specific language to amend the bylaws, and present this proposed language at the next ORRHES meeting. Ms. Galloway said that the work group had to 1) change the bylaws to accommodate the work group name changes, 2) prepare specific language that defined the roles of each work group, and 3) develop procedures for voting, nominating, selecting, and removing chairs.
Bill Taylor stated that the GPWG also needed to create descriptions for each new work group, and then modify the bylaws accordingly (as they relate to work group name and/or function). Dr. Taylor recommended removing specific work group names from the bylaws, thus alleviating the need to revise the bylaws if the group names were changed in the future. Susan Kaplan noted that the written descriptions would go into the record, but not into the bylaws. Dr. Taylor added that it would be helpful for ORRHES members to have a description of each work group for nominating and electing chairs.
Barbara Sonnenburg said that they needed to delete Article IX.4. from the bylaws. This item is presented below.
The work groups shall include the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group, the Agenda Work Group, the Communications and Outreach Work Group, the Health Needs Assessment Work Group, and the Public Health Assessment Work Group.
Bill Taylor said that they could replace the former names with the new work group names. Barbara Sonnenburg agreed with Dr. Taylor's suggestion to remove the group names from the bylaws altogether. Ms. Sonnenburg proposed a recommendation to "Delete Article IX.4. from the bylaws so that work group titles can be adjusted by the subcommittee as needed." Dr. Taylor suggested removing the word "titles" and replacing "adjusted" with "named." Therefore, the proposed recommendation read as the following: "Delete Article IX.4. from the bylaws so that work groups can be named by the subcommittee as needed."
Peggy Adkins suggested "creating or naming work groups and staffing them as needed." Bill Taylor did not think that they needed to discuss staffing at this point in the meeting.
James Lewis reminded the group that Kowetha Davidson (ORRHES Chair) requires a rationale for any proposed modification.
Bill Taylor thought that this recommendation was a general statement, and that is was best to keep the statement as such. He added that they did not want to provide too much detail.
Karen Galloway asked for a vote on the motion to "Delete Article IX.4. from the bylaws so that work groups can be named by the subcommittee as needed." The motion passed unanimously.
Susan Kaplan wanted to discuss Article VI.6 and Article IX.5. These are presented below and refer to the roles of the ORRHES Chair as defined in the current bylaws.
Article VI.6. The chair shall select the chair for each work group.
Article IX.5. The chair shall appoint all work group chairs and the chair shall be an ex officio member of all work groups.
Susan Kaplan thought they needed to remove Article VI.6. in its entirety from the bylaws. Barbara Sonnenburg suggested substituting "chair" with "subcommittee." Ms. Kaplan noted that this item was listed under the duties of the subcommittee chair, and that they could just eliminate the entire item.
Susan Kaplan discussed Article IX.5. and asked if the last part of the sentence"the chair shall be an ex officio member of all work groups"should be under the duties of the ORRHES chair.
Bill Taylor asked about Article VI.7. (presented below) of the bylaws.
The chair shall generally serve as a liaison between any work groups and DFO (Designated Federal Official), including notifying the DFO of the dates, times, and locations of work group meetings and keeping the DFO informed about work group progress.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked where they would say "how" the subcommittee would appoint the work group chairs. Bill Taylor replied that this was part of the charge to the GPWG. Ms. Sonnenburg asked if this would be conducted through a voting process. Dr. Taylor noted that in addition to preparing statements for each work group, the GPWG also needed to develop a "mechanism" for the work groups. Ms. Sonnenburg asked if the mechanism should be incorporated into the bylaws; Dr. Taylor thought it should be included. Ms. Sonnenburg suggested putting this into Article IX.5. (presented above).
Susan Kaplan referred the group to Article VI.7. (presented above). Ms. Kaplan believed that "serving as a liaison" in Article VI.7. and "being an ex officio member" in Article IX.5. needed to stay separated. Barbara Sonnenburg asked if Ms. Kaplan wanted to add both of these statements to Article VI.7. She said that Ms. Sonnenburg was correct. Bill Taylor noted that Article VI.7. was not how they were currently "doing business" as the ORRHES Chair was not serving as a liaison to inform DFO of dates, times, and locations. Though he noted, it did not affect anything to keep this information in the bylaws. Ms. Sonnenburg wanted to remove the word "generally." Karen Galloway suggested separating out the two roles by numbers. Ms. Kaplan proposed changing Article VI.7. to the following: "The chair shall serve as 1) an ex officio member of all work groups and 2) a liaison between any work groups and DFO, including notifying the DFO of the dates, times, and locations of work group meetings and keeping the DFO informed about work group progress."
Peggy Adkins asked if this would push the DFO further away from the activity. Barbara Sonnenburg noted that they were currently operating in this manner. Susan Kaplan noted that the DFO's role is upheld by law.
Karen Galloway asked for the group to vote on the motion to change Article VI.7. to the following: "The chair shall serve as 1) an ex officio member of all work groups and 2) a liaison between any work groups and DFO, including notifying the DFO of the dates, times, and locations of work group meetings and keeping the DFO informed about work group progress." The motion passed unanimously.
Susan Kaplan made a motion to delete Article VI.6. "The chair shall select the chair for each work group." The motion passed unanimously.
Barbara Sonnenburg referred the group to Article IX.5. (presented above). She suggested replacing "chair" with "subcommittee" and deleting the last phrase "and the chair shall be the ex officio member of all work groups." She added that they needed to indicate how the subcommittee would appoint all of the work group chairs, and that this was an appropriate place in the bylaws. Ms. Sonnenburg suggested using verbiage such as "the subcommittee business work group shall nominate." However, Peggy Adkins pointed out that they were removing work group names out of the bylaws to allow future flexibility. Ms. Adkins recommended that a list of the work groups and instructions for each group be maintained in ATSDR's Oak Ridge Field Office files, and that this could be indicated in the bylaws.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked how the chairs would be nominated. Bill Taylor replied that they needed to discuss this and return to the bylaws. Susan Kaplan thought the group should continue to work through the bylaws and return to the voting issue. James Lewis believed that this would be a lengthy discussion.
James Lewis referred the group to Article X.7. and read the first paragraph under "process for adopting formal health-related recommendations," which is presented below.
This section specifies the method for reaching a consensus on a major formal health-related recommendation to be forwarded to ATSDR and CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Consensus is defined as the maximum possible support for a position, but not less than 2/3 of the members voting.
James Lewis noted that "major" recommendations have never been defined. He wanted to discuss this issue. Bill Taylor stated that there were many issues that they could talk about, but that they needed to adhere to their charge. Dr. Taylor explained that he had never seen a formal definition of a "major" recommendation. However, he believed that if a recommendation was sent to ATSDR or CDC, then it was characterized as "major." If a recommendation was sent internally through the subcommittee, then this was not considered a "major" recommendation.
James Lewis believed that several issues have been process-related, but not health-related. He thought that this needed to be reviewed.
Barbara Sonnenburg proposed verbiage to use in the bylaws in relation to the voting process. She suggested stating that "the work group handling subcommittee business shall present a slate of nominees for vote to the subcommittee." Bill Taylor wanted to discuss the mechanisms for selecting, nominating, and other parts of the process. Susan Kaplan noted that volunteer sheets could be sent out. Ms. Sonnenburg did not think that this could be accomplished by the April 2004 ORRHES meeting. Dr. Taylor responded that this could be conducted at the April meeting. In the past, according to Dr. Taylor, ATSDR personnel sent out worksheets and people signed up if they wanted to be on a committee. He said that they could also have people self-nominate or have a box to nominate other people.
Barbara Sonnenburg thought a more traditional method was if people who were currently chairs volunteered. Susan Kaplan thought they should telephone people whom they thought possessed the attributes of a work group leader. Bill Taylor reminded the GPWG that a democratic process required that they contact everyone. Ms. Sonnenburg did not want to wait until the ORRHES meeting to contact people. Ms. Kaplan thought the group should divide the list of names and make telephone calls.
Peggy Adkins asked if they would vote by secret ballot. Barbara Sonnenburg said they could have slots underneath to add names. Bill Taylor explained that they would have a list of the ORRHES members and slots to name the nominees. James Lewis asked what the nominees would say to the group. Susan Kaplan suggested having each member's biograhpy at the meeting. Dr. Taylor said that it would be easy to bring these to the meeting. Mr. Lewis was concerned that some of the members' skill sets were not clearly defined in their biographies. Ms. Sonnenburg thought that they were familiar enough with everyone to know their capabilities.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked about having vice chairs and co-chairs. Bill Taylor thought that they would leave this decision up to each chair and individual work group. Susan Kaplan noted that ATSDR did not want the groups to have co-chairs. Dr. Taylor replied that it was problematic to liaison with more than one person because schedules were difficult to coordinate.
James Lewis suggested that the work groups make these decisions after the chairs were selected. Susan Kaplan thought it would be difficult to formulate a slate of nominees. Karen Galloway believed that there were several advantages to establishing co-chairs. Mr. Lewis asked about the differences between vice chairs and co-chairs. Barbara Sonnenburg replied that a vice-chair would stand in as needed or could be in charge of a particular function. Bill Taylor was not against the notion of vice chairs; co-chairs were difficult because then ATSDR needed to coordinate with two people instead of one. Ms. Galloway asked if Dr. Taylor saw a significant difference between the term "co-chair" and "vice chair." Dr. Taylor thought that these terms were very different. Dr. Taylor added that they could make it optional for a work group to have a vice chair. Ms. Galloway asked if the work group or subcommittee would vote on this issue. Peggy Adkins recommended that after the work groups were formed, each work group nominate its own vice chair. Mr. Lewis thought they could suggest this as an optional action.
Barbara Sonnenburg thought these suggestions needed to be included in the bylaws and presented at the next ORRHES meeting. James Lewis said that after the first meeting, they could come back with the vice chair. Ms. Sonnenburg said it would be too late. Peggy Adkins suggested that the first assignment for each work group could be to select a vice chair.
The work group proposed to change Article IX.5. to the following: "The subcommittee shall elect all work group chairs. The work group handling subcommittee business shall present a slate of nominees to the subcommittee. Nominations from the floor will be accepted. Votes shall be taken by secret ballot. Each work group may select a vice chair." The vote passed unanimously.
Susan Kaplan made a motion to change Article IX.6. in the bylaws. This item is presented below.
The Agenda Work Group, in cooperation with the chair and the DFO, shall establish and update the Program of Work (i.e., the long-term plan of the subcommittee), and shall assist the chair in establishing meeting agendas. The final agenda shall be subject to the approval of the DFO.
Susan Kaplan suggested changing "The Agenda Work Group" to "The work group handling subcommittee business." Barbara Sonnenburg referred to the "shall establish and update the Program of Work" and said "that's a joke." Ms. Kaplan asked if the section should be deleted, but Ms. Sonnenburg thought that it needed to be included.
Susan Kaplan made the motion to change article IX.6. to the following: "The work group handling subcommittee business, in cooperation with the chair and the DFO, shall establish and update the Program of Work (i.e., the long-term plan of the subcommittee), and shall assist the chair in establishing meeting agendas. The final agenda shall be subject to the approval of the DFO." The motion passed unanimously.
Susan Kaplan mentioned Article IX.14. that stated that a chair could be removed after missing three consecutive meetings. She referred to the following item:
Subcommittee members who are absent in person or by conference phone from three consecutive Work Group meetings and do not provide advance notification of their absence to the Work Group Chair, shall have their names removed from the roster of the Work Group. The member may be reinstated after providing notification to the Work Group Chair, prior to the next Work Group meeting, of their intention to rejoin the Work Group.
Susan Kaplan asked if this statement applied to the chair. Bill Taylor explained that ATSDR is not following this rule.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked where the bylaws mentioned signing up for committees. She wanted to know how people would join the work groups. She added that the subcommittee chair had always approved the members of the work groups. Bill Taylor and Karen Galloway were not aware of this procedure. Ms. Sonnenburg continued that they volunteered, but that she thought that the chair approved each member. James Lewis said that anyone could be in a work group and he assured Ms. Sonnenburg that the chair did not approve the members. Dr. Taylor added that this was not under the ORRHES Chair's duties. He said that the DFO periodically passed around worksheets and that anyone could volunteer to be in a work group.
James Lewis thought that Article IX.14. (presented above) was a "vicious statement." He did not think that this item should be applicable to all work group members or included in the bylaws. Susan Kaplan said that Mr. Lewis was off task and that they needed to deal with their "charge."
Karen Galloway asked if they would address removing chairs in the bylaws. Bill Taylor said that they could discuss this issue at a later time.
James Lewis thought they needed to periodically review the effectiveness of the chair.
Karen Galloway wanted to make sure that they handled the tasks that were requested by the subcommittee. She was confused about their exact responsibilities. She thought they were supposed to develop a procedure to outline how they would vote, nominate, remove, and select chairs. Bill Taylor was not certain of the charge in significant detail. Ms. Galloway thought that they should use this meeting to revise the bylaws. If they determined that they needed to conduct additional work, then she suggested that they hold another meeting.
Susan Kaplan suggested that they adopt Kowetha Davidson's procedures for selecting people to nominate for work group chairs. Ms. Kaplan was referring to choosing people to nominate and developing a slate of nominees; she was not talking about a procedure or criteria for selecting people to nominate. Barbara Sonnenburg asked if the bylaws contained information about this procedure. Ms. Kaplan did not think a specific procedure was used previously, and therefore, did not think it was necessary to add this into the bylaws. Bill Taylor noted that there was a procedure, but that ATSDR was open to input from ORRHES. He did not think that they needed to be concerned with individual criteria.
Susan Kaplan made a motion to change Article XII.2. (presented below):
Amendments may be proposed either by the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group or by petition of at least 20 percent of the members. Amendments must be presented to the chair at least one week before the mailing of meeting notices.
Susan Kaplan proposed altering "Guidelines and Procedures Work Group" to "work group handling subcommittee business." Karen Galloway asked the group for a vote on the motion to change Article XII.2. to the following: "Amendments may be proposed either by the work group handling subcommittee business or by petition of at least 20 percent of the members. Amendments must be presented to the chair at least one week before the mailing of meeting notices." The motion passed unanimously.
Susan Kaplan thought that there was a logical flow from the existing work groups to the new work groups. She thought that the subcommittee business work group would be a combination of the Agenda Work Group (AGW) and the GPWG. She thought that someone should take the statements of work (SOWs) and definitions for both groups and combine them to create a SOW for the newly created group. Bill Taylor was not sure that they had SOWs or definitions for the existing work groups. James Lewis suggested condensing the two groups as defined in the bylaws, but Dr. Taylor did not believe these were contained in the bylaws. Ms. Kaplan did not think they should have to define these work groups in the bylaws if definitions were not previously included.
Karen Galloway thought they needed to specifically define the work groups because the functions of the former work groups may not be enveloped completely into the new groups. She noted that people have suggested that the GPWG is just moving work groups around, but not making changes.
Susan Kaplan said that the Needs Assessment Work Group (NAWG) and the Community Outreach Work Group (COWG) would merge to form the Community Concerns and Communications Work Group. James Lewis said that the Community Concerns and Communications Work Group was changed to the Community Outreach Work Group. Ms. Kaplan said that there were not any minutes that reference or confirm this change. Karen Galloway said that they had voted on the change, but that the name was eventually read and approved as the GPWG had presented it. Bill Taylor remembered the discussion about the nature of the health outcome data work group and its educational nature, but did not recall the name being changed.
James Lewis referred the group to Article III, sections 24, in the bylaws
- ATSDR Public Health Assessment
The subcommittee shall provide advice to ATSDR in its public health assessment for the Oak Ridge Reservation starting in the year 2000. The assessment, for which the subcommittee will provide recommendations, has two main purposes:
- To determine how releases of hazardous substances from the reservation may have affected public health in communities around the sites.
- To decide what further public health activities or actions should be conducted.
ATSDR shall conduct the following activities as a part of the public health assessment:
- Identify and characterize both current and past exposures of off-site populations to radiologic and chemical contaminants.
- Identify populations exposed at levels of health concern.
- Address community health concerns.
- Recommend follow-up public health actions or studies.
The subcommittee shall provide advice to ATSDR in its community needs assessment starting in the year 2000. This assessment, for which the subcommittee will provide recommendations, will identify the health concerns of residents near the Oak Ridge Reservation. The needs assessment involves collecting data on community demographics, health concerns, health education needs, and available health resources. ATSDR will collect this information by reviewing existing documents, reports, and surveys; interviewing community members, health officials, and health care providers; and conducting community focus groups. The community needs assessment will provide the basis for developing and implementing a community health education program to assist community members and health care providers in understanding, preventing, and mitigating the potential health effects of exposure to hazardous substances from the Oak Ridge Reservation site.
Any on-site health concerns which are received by the subcommittee shall be documented and forwarded to ATSDR to be sent to the appropriate federal agency at ATSDR's discretion.
James Lewis stated that the new communications work group would handle the "community needs assessment" and "processing on-site health concerns" as described in the abovementioned article of the bylaws. Susan Kaplan pointed out that the on-site health concern item referred to health concerns on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR); they were concerned with exposures that occurred off site.
James Lewis said that the NAWG was established to address the "community needs assessment" portion of the bylaws. He suggested combining the COWG and NAWG because of their similar responsibilities.
James Lewis thought that they should use terms directly from ATSDR's Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (PHAGM) to define the following work groups: 1) Community Health Concerns and Communication, 2) Health Outcome Data, and 3) Exposure Evaluation. Mr. Lewis stated that the NAWG and COWG would be combined under the Community Health Concerns and Communication Work Group. Collaboratively, the group discussed the items that would be associated with the Health Outcome Data Work Group. These would consist of any disease statistics, including health outcome, toxicological, medical, cancer registry, and ORR-related health data.
Bill Taylor asked if the group would put these descriptions into sentences for the recommendations. Dr. Taylor explained that there was an issue because few databases were available for this community. Barbara Sonnenburg stated that Herman Cember had brought up a good point about birth defects registries, and asked what group these data would fall under. Dr. Taylor understood that the work group would look at available data, which could include registries, health information, studies, toxicologic data related to contaminants of concern (COCs), and other health information.
James Lewis read the following definition of health outcome data from ATSDR's PHAGM:
Health outcome data are community- specific and may include databases at the local, state, and national level, as well as data from private health care organizations and professional institutions and associations. Databases to be considered include medical records, morbidity and mortality data, tumor and disease registries, birth statistics, and surveillance data. Relevant health outcome data play an important role in assessing the public health implications associated with a hazardous waste site and in determining which follow-up health activities are needed.
James Lewis thought that they should use verbatim definitions from ATSDR's PHAGM for these terms. Karen Galloway noted that this definition was much different than what she had heard previously. She said that the definition was missing the statement that there has to be a "large enough database." Bill Taylor was not sure what Ms. Galloway meant. Ms. Galloway said that ATSDR always stated that it would not consider health data unless they were in a health outcome database that was large enough for ATSDR to validate. Dr. Taylor said it depended on the utilization of the data.
Karen Galloway said that there were birth defects registries and understood that one was initiated in Tennessee. However, the registry was discontinued and did not contain enough data for ATSDR to use. She knew that there were birth defects centers at hospitals because she had gone through the process. She added that there were places that have this information. Bill Taylor thought that a work group could evaluate these data.
Peggy Adkins wanted to ensure that if they used the direct definitions from the guidance manual that they did not lose the terminology from the bylaws in Article III., lines 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23. These included the following:
Lines 15-16: To determine how releases of hazardous substances from the reservation may have affected public health in communities around the sites.
Line 17: To decide what further public health activities or actions should be conducted.
Lines 21-22: Identify and characterize both current and past exposures of off-site populations to radiologic and chemical contaminants.
Line 23: Identify populations exposed at levels of health concern.
Bill Taylor stated that these line items were not about the work group. Peggy Adkins replied that the Health Outcome Data Work Group would be responsible for handling these tasks. She said that if this work group did not perform the work detailed in these items, then it would not be conducted.
Susan Kaplan asked if Peggy Adkins did not want them getting caught up in the information that only came from databases, and that she wanted them to look at local populations that may not be included in a database. Ms. Adkins said that Ms. Kaplan was correct.
James Lewis said that if they used these three terms, then he was going to use the guidance manual. He explained that there have been problems because they do not have a forum to address health outcome data, and as a result, issues have "fallen short." For example, he noted that the needs assessment did not have focus groups on cancer and no one has a forum for discussing health issues. He thought by establishing a group for health outcome data, it would "open the door up" and take the responsibility away from the Public Health Assessment Work Group (PHAWG). Bill Taylor suggested that the GPWG work off line to continue formulating the work group definitions.
Susan Kaplan said that they needed to make recommendations to the subcommittee. Karen Galloway responded that they could give a detailed description of the functions that they envision for each work group. James Lewis said that they should extract the definitions directly from PHAGM. Bill Taylor thought they needed to develop these descriptions and put them on record to present to the subcommittee as the "description of work group charge." He thought they should do this off line and send the descriptions via electronic mail (e-mail). Mr. Lewis agreed and said that he wanted the group's consensus on the definitions. Barbara Sonnenburg agreed with the health outcome data definition, but wanted to ensure that the other group descriptions included everything that was necessary. Dr. Taylor reiterated that they should write down the descriptions and communicate amongst the group.
Barbara Sonnenburg thought they should present all of these modifications under their first change (Article IX.4.) in the bylaws, where they deleted the group names. James Lewis stated that their recommendation and rationale for changing these work groups was to align themselves with the different divisions of ATSDR and with its guidance manual.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked when the GPWG would meet again. Susan Kaplan asked when the ORRHES had its next meeting. Bill Taylor replied that the next ORRHES meeting was on August 3, 2004. Ms. Sonnenburg thought they should complete their tasks as soon as possible. Bill Taylor encouraged the work group members to use e-mail and telephone to communicate before the next GPWG meeting. Dr. Taylor said that if they met on July 12, 2004, then they would have plenty of time.
Updated on Group Climate/Group Process EvaluationPresenter: Peggy Adkins
Peggy Adkins said that there was a "wealth" of information on team building. She looked into the 1983 Fred Pryor Seminars that she had attended to extract the 10 characteristics of a well-functioning team. Ms. Adkins said that the Fred Pryor seminar had been revised since 1983, and that it now had nine characteristics. She suggested that the GPWG use a 010 ranking scale for each item. They would also include space for comments. She said that the first option was to supply a list to the subcommittee members to determine if the ORRHES had any additional categories to include in the evaluation. Ms. Adkins read Fred Pryor Seminars' nine characteristics of a well-functioning team:
- Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.
- Individual members feel comfortable asking for information and assistance.
- Training opportunities for updating skills are offered, supported, and utilized.
- Community climate is relaxed and open; communication flows freely.
- Team members understand how their job fits into the picture.
- Team members know how department and committees fit together and have clear expectations.
- Risk is an accepted condition for growth and development.
- People ask for what they need and expect others to do the same.
- Conflict is managed effectively; it involves the recognition of differences, response to differences, and resolution of differences.
Peggy Adkins stated that these were the basic concepts that they could use, and added that the subcommittee may want to include other items as well. Ms. Adkins noted that she had used this exercise periodically with the coalition to assess how it was functioning as a team.
James Lewis thought this was "excellent" and thought they could create a sample to present to the subcommittee.
Peggy Adkins said they could include space for people to add items at the next meeting.
Susan Kaplan thought that some of characteristics were geared toward a work environment and would need tweaking. James Lewis replied that they could re-word the items to fit their needs. He added that they could receive feedback from everyone to see if the evaluation was useful. Peggy Adkins said that this would be a tool for the subcommittee to use to continuously refresh its procedures.h3>Additional Comments
Susan Kaplan asked about the nominee slate. She asked if they were waiting until July 12, 2004. James Lewis said that they needed to define the work groups first. Ms. Kaplan noted that she would be away the following week and that Barbara Sonnenburg would not be available either. She thought that they were "pushing it" to get people to consider these positions for the August ORRHES meeting. Mr. Lewis said that they needed to have the definitions created and accepted. Ms. Kaplan disagreed; she thought they needed to have a slate to bring to the meeting and that July 12, 2004, was too late. Ms. Sonnenburg did not think that this would be too late. Ms. Kaplan thought they needed to start making telephone calls.
Barbara Sonnenburg suggested having subcommittee members who have attended GPWG meetings to read and review their definitions in advance (for example, David Johnson).
Karen Galloway adjourned the meeting at 6:10 pm.
Please see the last page of these minutes for a list of the recommendations passed to change the ORRHES bylaws.
On June 14, 2004, the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group (GPWG) passed the following recommendations to change the ORRHES bylaws:
Delete Article IX.4. from the bylaws so that work groups can be named by the subcommittee as needed.
Change Article VI.7. to the following: "The chair shall serve as 1) an ex officio member of all work groups and 2) a liaison between any work groups and DFO, including notifying the DFO of the dates, times, and locations of work group meetings and keeping the DFO informed about work group progress."
Delete Article VI.6."The chair shall select the chair for each work group."
Change Article IX.5. to the following: "The subcommittee shall elect all work group chairs. The work group handling subcommittee business shall present a slate of nominees to the subcommittee. Nominations from the floor will be accepted. Votes shall be taken by secret ballot. Each work group may select a vice chair."
Change Article IX.6. to the following: "The work group handling subcommittee business, in cooperation with the chair and the DFO, shall establish and update the Program of Work (i.e., the long-term plan of the subcommittee), and shall assist the chair in establishing meeting agendas. The final agenda shall be subject to the approval of the DFO."
Change Article X.12. (first sentence) to the following: "The order of business for each subcommittee meeting shall be determined by the work group handling subcommittee business."
Change Article XII.2. to the following: "Amendments may be proposed either by the work group handling subcommittee business or by petition of at least 20 percent of the members. Amendments must be presented to the chair at least one week before the mailing of meeting notices."