CMC Minutes June 13, 2016
CMC Meeting, June 13th, 2016
In Attendance: Chance Sterling (GML), Rick Tisinai (CSL), Christina Holt (GSL), Robin Strelow (CIRES COMMs), Antonietta Capotondi (PSL), Carrie Bell (NCEI), Carrie Morrill (NCEI), Amanda Morton (CIRES OUTREACH), Guest: Robin Moser (CSTPR)
The meeting began at 12:05pm
With only 8 members present, there is no quorum – not voting may take place
Robin Moser from CSTPR is interesting in joining the CMC!
Current members introduced themselves…
Rendezvous follow up:
Discussed logistics, the good things, and also the issues from the Q&A session at the Rendezvous.
• Reviewing the supervisors – seen on the anonymous feedback page, but CIRES admin dropped the ball on this, so it re-emerged at the Rendezvous. How can this be structured? Also how can feedback be enforced?
• Discussion/Questions so far: what if your supervisor’s supervisor is Waleed himself? What if the supervisor has only one supervisee? Is there an opportunity for positive feedback?
Christina opened the floor to have us begin to construct a statement. Antonietta described that the Science advisor should be part of the feedback to the CIRES Supervisor. Antonietta suggested Waleed directly? Robin S described how she does not have a “supervisor’s supervisor.” Christina suggested that the CMC could be at least one of the conduits to help.
Antonietta described the typical chain of ASA. Carrie Morrill says her scenario is very different.
Rick described an ideal use of a CIRES Ombudsperson. Robin S described that it would be best if this structure included positive and constructive points as well. Antonietta also addressed the ideal use for awards, due to awareness. Robin S said that that may not be as good as it could be. Christina described a GSL retreat - could that be a type of place and time to mediate issues? Robin S said in the corporate world said that supervisor evaluations are common and useful for both good and bad responses. ASA packet goes to Paula Robinson and Karen Dempsey. Amanda described that we could have a plan where the supervisor’s Asa could pull their supervisee’s ASAs as well. Robin M described that she feels a separation from her supervisors. Robin S described the plan to have feedback go first to the actual supervisor! Antonietta described how the quality of the feedback could vary widely. Carrie B described how the idea Amanda had would empower the supervisor’s supervisor. Carrie M said she liked bundling the evaluation in each ASA packet – concerns over anonymity and such would be natural concerns.
Robin summarized that we are talking about two separate things: evaluations or problems.
Dealing with Problems:
CMC is a resource, the University Ombudsperson, CIRES supervisors, Lucia at NOAA
CMC notifying members of our existence! Cookies and or candy with a CMC representative flyer to advertise!
Put up a picture of yourself with contact info!
• Including the evaluation of the supervisor in the ASA
Robin S suggested that we form a subcommittee to address the structure of the evaluation process
Christina read a message from a CIRES member regarding evaluations.
(include message here)
CMC can make it a priority to address this set of issues.
Christina will talk to Nate on the impact of implementing this.
Chance stated we need to see the online Q&A - the CMC does have access to the online pages, so we can see the questions and the answers from CIRES Admin. Robin S – who does respond to this stuff? Christina says that typically, Lucia provides some overview to this online process, including prompting CIRES admin to timely respond! Amanda said that Lucia thought the response had been given, but it was not apparent online.
Christina: If we have any issues with communication responses to feedback (7 days) she will let him know.
More from the Rendezvous follow up: all three campuses need to step up their sponsorship of CIRES Town Halls. Have Waleed announce the meetings in a timely manner and have CMC involved in sponsoring the meetings!
OPA By-Laws need to be on the website! – how they are gathered (all year, up to a cut-off date?), and how they are judged. Nominations after the cut-off date will be considered for the next Rendezvous.
Christina asked to form a subcommittee to review and construct the OPA By-Laws. She will send a message to the CMC to ask for 3 members of the subcommittee. Chris Clack has the “box of rules,” and can give it back to Christina.
CIRES Review – August
Lucia needs 8 CMC members to help. Rick, Chance, Amanda, Antonietta. Carrie M said that we may get former CMC members to help.
Membership Committee - Chance
Chance has an email message drafted to remind CMC members to remember their commitment to the CMC
By-Laws committee – Rick
Final By-Laws will be sent out to the CMC next week. The Operational Guidelines document will follow.
Rendezvous Committee - Amanda
Amanda discuss the online questionnaire. Mostly positive! The food arrangement was appreciated, but perhaps the food tables could be directly in front of the entrance.
There were “just enough” posters. Some posters can cross-over to other “divisions.” This year, the quotas were removed. However, many were still looking for poster approval.
Christina will talk to Kristen about the CIRES division update in July.
Carrie B described that the CIRES award, recognizing the people that were part of the NOAA awards (who were not included in the NOAA recognition), does not need to involve the NOAA people attending the Rendezvous.
The actual award deliveries: we discussed ideas on how that could be accelerated. Christina questioned the necessity of accelerating this: “This is our award ceremony, so members should just deal with it.”
Carrie B suggested that Waleed’s presentation could be emphasized in his Town Hall meeting. We should focus on the celebration of the event, not the business.
Eliminate the Q&A session. There was a (unofficial) consensus on that.
Next month will be back at Eckely and as a brown bag lunch.
Meeting adjourned at 1:58pm