Minutes of the May 12, 2008 SECOORA Board of Directors Meeting

Download this as a Microsoft Word document or a Adobe PDF file.

 

The 6th (3rd in person) meeting of the SECOORA Board of Directors was held Monday, May 12, 2008 in Jacksonville, FL at 12:30 p.m.

 

Directors Present In-Person:

Otis Brown	Rick Devoe	Dick Dodge
Carroll Hood	Denise Johnston	Lynn Leonard
Cliff Merz	Joe Ramus	Mitch Roffer
Jim Sanders	Harvey Seim	Lundie Spence
Sandra Vargo	Pat Welsh

 

Directors Present via Telephone:

Carolyn Dekle

 

Directors Absent:

Kim Cavendish

Andy Clark

George Maul

 

Staff Present:
Parker Lumpkin, Interim Executive Director
Susannah Sheldon, Program Coordinator
Sam Walker, ODP IM Coordinator
Jennifer Dorton, Special Projects Coordinator

 

Materials Provided at the May 12, 2008 Meeting:
1) Draft Agenda for May 12, 2008
2) Board Meeting Minutes of Jan 7-8, 2008
3) Election Process Document
4) Policy and Program Committee Updates (included in these minutes)

 

1 Draft Agenda Approval

Discussion centered on approving the draft agenda (Appendix A). Agenda items were read and suggestions to amend the agenda were made. Rick DeVoe recommended adding an Executive Session to the end of the day for the purpose of discussing the Executive Director position, which is newly vacant, and reconvening after to discuss any action items. That was agreed upon. Dick Dodge made recommendations to discuss the Board vacancy resulting from Glen Shen’s resignation and Sustaining/Individual membership dues. Rick DeVoe indicated that these would likely come up as points of discussion during Committee Chair reports, and suggested taking them up as separate points-of-discussion only if this was not the case. Dick Dodge agreed to this. He also made the recommendation that the Executive Committee charge be discussed. Rick DeVoe suggested adding this as a tentative agenda item, time permitting.

MOTION (Sanders): To revise the agenda to include: a) an Executive Session to discuss the Executive Director position that is now vacant and b) a tentative item to discuss the Executive Committee charge.
SECOND (Welsh)

The revised agenda was accepted unanimously.

 

2 SECOORA Achievements/Outcomes Meeting

The Board Chair, Rick DeVoe, made presented the Board with the idea of hosting a SECOORA Achievements/Outcomes meeting later in the year. The idea is to begin transitioning meeting from governance to “substance” in an effort to recognize and discuss various efforts in the region. The timeframe would be in the next 6-8 months. This would focus on programs, activities, outcomes, benefits, etc. and ask those individuals who are doing work around the region to present it in that forum . The meeting would be open to any interested parties, with a focus on individuals SECOORA would like to get more engaged. Dick Dodge asked if this would be a seminar series. Rick indicated that he thought aiming to get individuals beyond the membership involved is the way to go. Mitch Roffer suggested inviting the media to this event. Lundie Spence suggested inviting other RAs. Harvey Seim mentioned that targeted workshops focusing on specific user groups are popular around the country, and SECOORA would be smart to host one of those. Lynn Leonard reiterated this idea, suggesting a minimal fee for non-member participation. Rick suggested potentially involving Board committees and the Stakeholder Council. The Board agreed this was an idea to follow-up on.

ACTION ITEMS:
Draft a one-page concept paper describing the scope of the event for review by the Board (DeVoe).
Staff collects and collates comments on the one-pager (Sheldon).
Begin organization (Board/Staff)

 

3 Review/Approval of Jan 7-8, 2008 Board Minutes

Discussion:

Dick Dodge indicated that the meeting minutes distributed (Appendix B) did not include the full transcript from the Board meeting in January and that before approving the minutes, these should be included. Rick Devoe indicated that in his experience with Board, he had not seen detailed minutes including transcripts. Dick Dodge suggested the minutes be approved in concept only, since the Board had not seen the full minutes including the transcripts. Susannah Sheldon reminded the Board that the full minutes, including the transcripts, had been circulated. Jim Sanders felt the document included in the meeting materials were sufficient as minutes. Otis Brown suggested calling the included document a summary of actions or something similar. He liked the format, and does not want to receive a full transcript. Lundie Spence disagreed with Dick in that minutes are not transcripts, but they are an amalgamation of actions taken to allow everyone to know what was done. She does not feel this format be called an Executive Summary, as it currently is, and also suggests this should be the formal record of the meeting. Pat Welsh suggested calling it “Results of the Meeting” or some such. He also pointed out an error in Andy Clark’s name in the minutes. Carroll Hood indicated that, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, meeting minutes were not required to include a transcript of the meeting. Required in minutes are: name, date, time, Chair, Secretary, whether minutes were read and approved, and all motions and points-of-order. He suggested that the format included in the meeting materials was sufficient to serve as formal meeting minutes. Rick DeVoe called for a motion.

MOTION (Seim): To accept the minutes from the January 7-8, 2008 Board meeting in Savannah, GA.
SECOND (Ramus)

The minutes were accepted unanimously.

Rick DeVoe asked Carroll if he would like to make a motion regarding the format of the minutes.

MOTION (HOOD): To refer to the Executive Summary of the minutes from January 7-8, 2008 Board Meeting as the official minutes of the meeting for the record.
SECOND (Brown)

The motion passed unanimously.

ACTIONS: Revise Andy Harris to read Andy Clark (Sheldon)
Revise the Jan 7-8, 2008 Board Meeting minutes heading from Executive Summary to read Official Minutes (Sheldon)

 

4 Interim Executive Director Update

Parker Lumpkin formally informed the Board that he was resigning. He acknowledged the governance work that SECOORA has undertaken, but thinks that it is time to move towards operations. He reviewed the 2008 RCOOS proposal process and results, indicating that SECOORA received $400,000 from NOAA after initially being told we would not receive anything. Data Management and HF Radar were the focus areas determined to be appropriate to fund with this money. He presented a revised organizational chart for SECOORA, highlighting the RCOOS piece and suggesting that the next Executive Director should play a large role in the RCOOS. Harvey indicated that the revised chart was in response to the last Board meeting and where the RCOOS really fits into SECOORA. The natural split is between the policy and program committees, with the policy committees dealing primarily with the internal workings of the RA and the program committees are a sort of “public face.” Rick DeVoe noted that the committees and RCOOS intersect and suggested for purposes of the chart, that the Public Policy Committee be moved to the "public face."

Parker indicated as to incorporation, we are waiting official word from the attorney that we are acknowledged at the Federal level. The planning grant was favorably received, and funded to keep the RA running. The process for writing and revising the RCOOS proposal was painful, and the process needs to be streamlined for future efforts. It is full-funded for out years ($3.5M), dependent on funding availability. Harvey Seim agreed that a better process is a good idea, but the most difficult aspect of this was determining what NOAA needed. Rick DeVoe suggested that prior to each proposal revision or submission, we get with NOAA so we know exactly what is needed for the proposal submission.

Parker reviewed several meetings. He attended a GCOOS Board meeting, and indicated that they are struggling to move forward, even with the strong partnership with oil and gas industry. He also reviewed the meeting with GCOOS, CaRA, and NOAA that took place in Houston in April. This included a review of SECOORA for NOAA, and he felt the meeting was a success. It was a good time to let NOAA know what we needed, where we are struggling, and where we have been successful.

The state of SECOORA reiterates the incorporation and proposal status. There have been struggles, as we are losing capabilities. Madilyn Fletcher pulled three buoys out and the SABSOON towers are being decommissioned at the end of the year. One of the messages to Zdenka Willis, NOAA IOOS Program Manager, is that we jumped off the cliff and asked our members to follow, but we are still looking for that safety net. Limping along at $400,000 is not going to be enough for the RA to continue.

Parker suggested that membership dues might be well spent on something operational. They should not be used for anything administrative. This might allow us to achieve something with that money. Success stories remain an Achilles heel, but they are important for us to be able to take something to the Hill to show how we save lives, save money, and save resources.

Otis asked Parker about Zdenka’s response to SECOORA’s suggestion at the Houston meeting that it was time to “do it or close up shop.” Parker said she acknowledged the region’s pain, but there is not much she can do about it. She knows what is going on in the regions. Rick added that over the last five to seven years, SECOORA has lost significant capacity in the transition from earmarks to a base budget approach. She did not indicate when she might pull the plug, and she is optimistic about things. It cannot be much more than a year or two at this level. Otis reiterated that we all held hands and jumped off the cliff, with the idea that there would be a net at some point, and the promise of a net was stronger a few years ago than it is at this point.

Parker addressed the need for an Interim Executive Director until a permanent hire can be made. The individual needs to be well-versed in IOOS and is knowledgeable in the operational and technical sense. They should also be able to lead the proposal writing process. A national search would be the most effective method to find someone. There also need to be discussions.

Otis Brown agreed that there needs to be someone in place for the interim. He asked why, given that the funding problem is largely political, should the focus be on their operational knowledge as opposed to their political savvy? The states have a problem right now in their own budgets, and the only other potential source would be private industry.

Parker suggested that Otis bring this up at the Executive Session as well. He also thought that the Executive Director needs to be a savvy fundraiser. Mitch Roffer asked if the next Executive Director ought to be someone who could get extramural funding without Congress and the States. Lynn Leonard agreed with these positions. Having someone with technical and operational knowledge is important. Rick mentioned that hiring a new Executive Director came up at the Houston meeting, and one of the concerns was who would be interested in this job with the future of funding so uncertain? Parker directed the Board to the position description he put together as a starting point for the search.

In closing, Parker reiterated the need for as transparent a process as possible and that internal power plays are detrimental to the organization. Parker thanked the Board for the time and energy that they have dedicated to the RA.

ACTION ITEMS: Distribute the new organizational chart to the Board and post on the Web (Sheldon).

 

5 Committee Updates

 

Governance Committee (Joe Ramus)

We have had three Board member resignations: Frank Muller-Karger, Glen Shen, and Bill Dewar. There was confusion about how to replace those individuals on the Board, but the By-Laws outlines a clear procedure for doing so. Harvey mentioned that there was no resignation letter from Bill included in the package and was confused as to how he resigned. Dick Dodge responded that once his institution selected another institutional representative, he was no longer the institutional representative, and therefore ineligible to be a Board member. Lundie mentioned that Bill also declined to be re-nominated for a Board seat. Otis mentioned that he received Bill Dewar’s proxy for the Board meeting, indicating that he had not, in fact, resigned. Dick reiterated that once he was no longer the institutional representative, he was no longer eligible to hold a Board seat. Bill had not been officially notified that he was no longer eligible to sit on the Board.

Rick asked that Glen Shen’s replacement be placed, according to the process outlined in the By-Laws, before the new Board is seated. Dick Dodge asked what date the new Board members will be seated, so a timeframe could be established for soliciting nominations to fill Glen Shen’s vacancy.

Dick Dodge brought up the issue of when Board terms end, this issue being does it correspond to SECOORA’s fiscal year or to one year from the date of election. Discussion ensued and it appeared the fiscal year was the most reasonable.

MOTION (DeVoe): To establish that the first year of Board terms ends on June 30, 2008, and seat new Board members on July 1, 2008.
SECOND (Leonard)

The motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Set up next Board meeting. (Sheldon)

ACTION ITEM: Per the By-Laws process, solicit nominations for Glen Shen’s seat and convene a special meeting of the Board telephonically or electronically to elect a replacement for Glen Shen before July 1, 2008 (Dodge/Sheldon)

Discussion continued with status of the Education and Outreach Committee chairmanship. George Maul and Glen Shen were co-Chairs initially because they both expressed interest in the position. Glen’s resignation left George as the sole Chair. The Board agreed that George should be contacted to determine his willingness to serve as the sole Chair, or if he would prefer a co-Chair.

ACTION ITEM: Contact George Maul to see if he is willing to serve as solo Chair of the Education and Outreach Committee. (Sheldon)

Due to Bill Dewar no longer being a Board member, the Chairmanship of the Science Advisory Committee is also vacant. As it is a Program Committee, the representative of a member in good standing may fill this position. Lynn Leonard encouraged the Board to consider the full membership when making nominations to fill this seat, and thought perhaps someone already on that committee might be willing to fill that role. There was a question as to whether or not the Science Advisory Committee had met yet, and Otis Brown indicated that, on behalf of Bill Dewar, he was to report that the Committee had agreed upon their charge.

ACTION ITEM: Discuss on the next Board call a mechanism for filling the position of Chair for the Science Advisory Committee from the Board members. (Board)

ACTION ITEM: Distribute Committee charge to Board. (Sheldon)

Joe Ramus continued with a review of the membership review process staff compiled (Appendix C). Requests for membership are forwarded to the Executive Director, who will collate these into a document. This document will then be forwarded to the Governance Committee for review and recommendation to the Board. The Board will make the final membership decisions and the Executive Director will notify the applicants. This document should be reviewed by the Board and approved before implementation.

ACTION ITEM: Board will review this process on the next Board conference call (Board).

Three new Institutional Members are up for approval: Resolve Marine Group, WeatherFlow, and East Carolina University. There was confusion as to why Resolve Marine Group was on this list, but their membership was reaffirmed. East Carolina University desired to begin membership at the start of the next fiscal year. This had no bearing on their approval at this meeting.

MOTION (Ramus): That Resolve Marine Group, WeatherFlow, and East Carolina University be approved for Institutional Membership in SECOORA.
SECOND (Seim)

The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Ramus continued by indicating that two terms of reference members (NOAA/AOML and the SE/Gulf/Caribbean Office of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program) wish to become affiliate members. It is up to a Federal agency whether they want to join as a single organization or permit several departments or programs from within an agency to join. Either way, they are non-voting and non-paying, but do have a voice at the table.

MOTION (Ramus): That NOAA/AOML and the SE/Gulf/Caribbean Office of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program be approved for affiliate membership in SECOORA.
SECOND (DeVoe)

The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Ramus referred to the Article in the By-Laws which limits any state to holding no more than 67% of the Board seats. The Governance Committee was asked to re-visit this issue. They took it up for consideration, and the Governance Committee recommendation to the Board that the issue be left alone unless it proves to be an issue. The Committee feels, however, that this is a Board Development Committee issue. In addition, there was concern that this change, which occurred after the membership meeting in 2007, was never approved by the membership.

ACTION ITEM: Identify all changes to the By-Laws that were never approved by the membership (Lumpkin)

Dr. Ramus continued with the Governance Committee suggestion to the Board that the Sustaining Member category be left intact. The last item presented to the Board was how to handle multiple institutions/departments from a single organization. East Carolina University (ECU) and the Coastal Studies Institute were thought to both be representing ECU; however they are separate entities, as determined by financial administration. This issue also arose with Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and FAU-SeaTech as both representing Florida Atlantic University. Joe Ramus referenced Article II, Section 7, which limits a member's voting rights to one vote. Pat Welsh liked the idea of limiting voting ability to one per member. Rick DeVoe suggested that, per the By-Laws, there was one vote per organization, not departments within organizations. He recommended that the Governance Committee put together a package of the changes to the By-Laws that need to be approved by the members and put it before the Board for review and approval.

ACTION ITEM: Suggest clarification language to add to By-Laws to explicitly state member voting rights. (Governance Committee)

ACTION ITEM: Assemble package of recommendations to the Board for review and approval at the special Board meeting (Ramus/Sheldon).

ACTION ITEM: Contact Florida Atlantic University to determine whether Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution is a distinct entity from Florida Atlantic University (FAU). If it is not, then an authorized representative of FAU must decide who the institutional (i.e. voting) representative of the broader FAU community will be (Sheldon)

 

Board Development Committee (Lundie Spence)

Through a number of conference calls and other forms of communication, the Committee met and developed the election framework for the Membership Meeting elections (Appendix D). The Committee put this together and vetted through the ExCom, where Dick Dodge added a code of conduct. Within the framework a process was outlined to address the potential issue of a violation of the 67% rule. Next, a Nominations Subcommittee was created to see the process through. With staff input, they established a timeline within which to solicit nominees. From the nominees, a slate of candidates was put together and CVs solicited. This slate was sent to the Board for approval. Throughout this process, the committee worked closely

ACTION ITEM: Solicit feedback from the Board for improvements or changes to the election process document to improve for future elections. (Nominations Subcommittee)

The Board Development Committee did not have time to determine what appropriate Board evaluation criteria might be.

ACTION ITEM: Draft guidelines for Board member evaluation. (Board Development Committee)

The committee did not address the role of Public Seats. Rick DeVoe suggested the possibility of seating representatives from the neighboring RAs (CaRA, MACOORA, and GCOOS) to enhance communications between the regions.

ACTION ITEM: Make a recommendation for the role of Public Seats to the Board. (Lundie Spence/Joe Ramus)

The issue of transfer of proxies arose, and it was determined that proxies given to one individual do not transfer to another if the original individual is absent. The Board also realized that proxies had not been sent to them for approval prior to the Membership Meeting. The proxies were allowed to stand. Rick DeVoe asked the Governance Committee to look at that section of the By-Laws and recommend a more streamlined approach for proxy approval so the entire Board does not need to be convened to do this. Otis Brown suggested instead that the Board just agree now that at Board meetings, Staff presents the proxies to the Board.

For the elections, the Nominations Subcommittee will count the ballots and report the results in the afternoon.

The issue of Bill Dewar not having officially resigned from the Board arose here. Since Georges Weatherly is now the designated representative, per his department head, Georges is eligible to be on the ballot.

Pat Welsh indicated that the Vice President of Research (Imeh Ebong) at UNF was determined to be the designated representative for the University since he has the authority to speak for the institution. Pat is the alternate representative, so the question arose as to whether or not he is permitted to be on the Board. It was determined that he will work with the University to obtain the designation as institutional representative.

Rick made the suggestion that the proxy issue needs to be addressed. His recommendation was that designated alternate representatives might be an option for involvement in SECOORA meetings. This will be under the purview of the Board Development Committee and may involve a change of By-Laws. Lynn reiterated the importance of consistency across the Board to avoid the appearance of special treatment.

ACTION ITEM: Review the issues of institutional representation and Board participation and make recommendations to the Board. (Governance and Board Committees)

 

Public Policy Committee (Rick DeVoe)

It was not clear whether or not Andy Clark was still on the Public Policy Committee since he mentioned resigning but no one had ever seen a letter requesting this. It was determined that he had not taken any official action to resign. There needs to be a communication on SECOORA letterhead that goes to the appropriate individuals to inform everyone simultaneously of an action such as a resignation, proxy, etc.

ACTION ITEM: Draft template on SECOORA letterhead that can be used to inform the Board simultaneously of actions such as resignations, proxies, etc. (Sheldon)

At the national level, NFRA has been advocating for a $90M budget, with $50M going to the regions. The President’s Budget has $14M for IOOS in FY09. There is likely to be a Continuing Resolution until early spring of 2009, and future Federal budgets are uncertain. We probably will see a similar total budget for IOOS next year. In terms of authorization, IOOS legislation has passed the full House. The Senate Commerce committee is trying to package some bills together, including an IOOS bill, to move it to the floor of the Senate, bypassing the usual process. This will require 60 votes to pass the Senate.

SECOORA participated in a meeting in Houston with NOAA, CaRA, and GCOOS. The RA was represented by Rick DeVoe, Harvey Seim, and Parker Lumpkin. Four NOAA representatives, including Zdenka Willis, attended the meeting and conducted an assessment of each RA. While at the meeting, the three RAs developed a list of ideas for collaboration in the future.

SECOORA needs to do a better job of advocating for the region and contacting legislators in our region and advocating for IOOS and SECOORA. If this is determined to be an appropriate role for SECOORA internally, this will be a difficult task to coordinate, however. Perhaps the model to follow is that of COL. They have a group that consists of the contacts within universities that deal with federal affairs, and it convenes when a fire drill comes around.

ACTION ITEM: Identify individuals at respective institutions that serve in this capacity (Public Policy Committee)

 

Finance Committee (Carroll Hood for Kim Cavendish)

The committee met in April and recommends the following dues levels for FY09:

Institutional: $1,000
Sustaining: $3,000 (was $10,000)
Individual: $250 (was $500)

MOTION (Hood): To approve the dues level recommendations
SECOND (Vargo)

The motion passed unanimously.

There is expected to be approximately $30K from dues and the committee developed a recommendation for its use. The money should be split equally into a funds for activities which have no other viable legal mechanisms to fund them (i.e. advocacy) and a fund for competitive discretionary fund for non-operational efforts. It will be important to determine the source of dues to ensure funds may be used for this purpose. Non-operational activities might include educational or marketing activities. In addition, NFRA will be seeking dues from the RAs from non-Federal funds. This might also be an example of an allowable non-operational activity.

MOTION (Hood): To partition dues into these two types of funds with the goal of a 50/50 split.
SECOND (Vargo)

This motion passed unanimously.

A template for applying for the competitive funds was recommended to the Board (Appendix E). It includes a brief description of the activities and a checklist of criteria. The applicant is required to submit this and explicitly the relevance of the activity to SECOORA and the listed criteria. There will be a call for activity descriptions and they would be ranked, and funded in that order. Lynn raised the issue that there may be relevant activities that arise outside of the "proposal" period and suggested leaving a portion of this fund available for such opportunities. There needs to be a transparent process for the Finance Committee to administer the program, and an ad hoc committee should

MOTION (Hood): To approve the process template and direct the Finance Committee to refine the process for administering this program.
SECOND (Welsh)

The motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Continue refining the process for administering the competitive funds in a timeframe such that it may be implemented during the summer. (Finance Committee)

ACTION: Develop process for allocating the competitive funds for Board review and approval, including leaving a portion available for ad hoc projects (Finance Committee)

The issue arose as to why there is not transparency of SECOORA budgets so that the Board is privy to SECOORA funds expenditures. A spreadsheet of what is spent and what is left would suffice. This will also assist in knowing what to budget for in future proposals or proposal revisions.

ACTION: SECOORA grant budgets will be posted to the Web for Board access (Sheldon), and budget updates provided on a quarterly basis in the form of a spreadsheet and including expenditures and balance (Knight).

 

Stakeholder Advisory Council (Lynn Leonard)

Lynn and Jennifer contacted all of the members in March and heard back from most. They provided the Primer to Council and directed them to Web site as well. Members were asked to select categories of interest within the 3 defined SECOORA priorities. Conserving marine resources was the clear priority. The committee held three informational conference calls in April to determine the committee charge, answer questions any members had, and provide basic information about SECOORA. Issues from member input included:

1. Unclear benefits of membership
2. Dues too high for benefits
3. SECOORA needs to focus more on generating participation of members and nonmembers
4. Need to host more topical workshops
5. Workshops for anyone, free to members
6. The Web site looks as though it is set up to serve its own membership, and SECOORA needs to do more to include stakeholders and meet their needs; an idea was to set up a listserv
7. Provide access to archived data; for some it is as valuable as real-time data
8. Change the culture from academic-based approach to stakeholder/user-based approach
9. Buy into national initiatives as activities are prioritized
10. While prioritizing funds, consider which assets are being utilized and by whom. Buy into existing efforts, as opposed to expanding.
11. Identify and actively involve stakeholders from the beginning of an activity/effort

The Committee also distributed a survey to the committee members. There were 17 out of 30 respondents, most from state or federal agencies. The survey asked each respondent to:

1. Identify their profession and sector
2. Indicate the types of data used in their profession
3. Specify their data sources
4. Identify the data they use as real-time, archived, or both
5. Indicate any data types not listed on the survey

The information was broken down into real-time data use by member. The primary data used are: wind, water temperature, air temperature, waves, and pressure. For archived data, the primary ones used are: wind, water temperature, waves, air pressure, and salinity.

Rick DeVoe mentioned that if the concept of the “activities” meeting comes to fruition, it would be a good idea to distribute the survey to those attendees, and also potentially post the survey on the Web site and solicit participation.

ACTION ITEM: Contact each Board member whose suggestions to the SAC did not respond to requests for participation. (Lynn Leonard/Jennifer Dorton)

ACTION ITEM: Get feedback on Primer from SAC (Leonard/Dorton)

ACTION ITEM: Provide Primer to E&O Committee for comment on its potential uses (Dorton)

 

Education and Outreach Committee (Dick Dodge for George Maul)

The list of potential members was provided to the Board for approval

1. Allison Sill (NOAA)
2. Manhar Dhanak (FAU SeaTech)
3. Peter Tatro (HBOI)
4. Joe Boyer (FIU)
5. Mike Spranger (FL Sea Grant)
6. Joe Ramus (Duke University Marine Laboratory)
7. Denise Johnston (Resolve Marine Group)
8. Laura Bracken (RSMAS)
9. Quinton White (JU)
10. Ali Hudson (USF)
11. Katie Greganti or Leslie Sautter (College of Charleston)
12. Terry Kirby-Hathaway (NC Sea Grant)
13. Elizabeth Vernon (SC Sea Grant)
14. Tom Gustafson (Nova Southeastern)
15. George Maul (FIT)

ACTION: Provide draft charge and list of potential members for discussion and approval at the next Board of Directors meeting (E&O Committee/Dorton)

 

ODP Update (Carroll Hood)

From the revised RCOOS proposal, we have funding of about $200K. The work plan priorities are to:

1. Develop infrastructure leveraging existing assets, but looking forward to the future
2. Focus on delivery on useful information to stakeholders
3. Coordination of data providers

High level accomplishments:

1. Used requirements process
2. Updating schema for centralized database
3. Changed tagging of images on Web site
4. Revamped process for getting data into the system
5. Building the 80/20 portal: 80% of users
6. Will probably use 20% of the information, but communities of interest may have more demanding requirements that will require user-tailored portlets to be developed and will complement the portal.
7. Migrating services into SECOORA enterprise context
8. DMCC has been established
9. Communication protocol is established
10. Leveraging Open Source applications
11. Open Layer mapping applications

Challenges:
1. Trying to pare down the activities from the original $1.5M proposal to $200K.

Funding for FY08 will augment the FY07 activities. Near-term priorities include:

1. Provide infrastructure in place with coordinating nodes
2. Brought in UNCW to create synergy with their architecture
3. Leveraged Skidaway data contribution through their HF radar work.
4. FY07 funds will be rolled over to process management

 

Operations and Maintenance (Harvey Seim/Cliff Merz)

They generated the initial committee charge and internally began reviewing it, and also developed some focus areas. These include: establish/maintain inventory of assets used in the observing systems, promote establishment of data monitoring services, promote a concept of operations for the observing systems, and work with systems engineers to document the state of the observing system.

Based on these four focus areas, the committee discussed some actions to support them and what efforts might assist in development of the asset inventory. Tracking assets has proven to be a challenge in the past, and it was determined that the committee should interface with DMAC on this point rather than develop a process alone. What assets to initially track was also discussed, and initial emphasis was determined to be on radar, with the understanding it would need to be a process that was generic enough to translate to all types of data. Discussions also focused on the idea of getting a handle on operations and maintenance costs, and compare with costs in other regions.

 

Science Advisory Committee (Otis Brown for Bill Dewar)

The committee has developed their charge.

ACTION ITEM: Distribute charge to Board (Sheldon)

 

Business Plan Primer (Jennifer Dorton)

At January Board meeting, it was determined that staff would revise the business plan into a shorter document that could be given to stakeholders to get an understanding of SECOORA. The business plan was melded with the original RCOOS plan and the result was the Primer. Changes provided by Lundie Spence and Susannah Sheldon were incorporated into the document.

This is a major marketing tool for SECOORA, so it should continue to be revised. The purpose makes sense, but it is not clear why this was initiated. Initially, there was a strategic implementation plan request, but this has transitioned to a stakeholder document. There are four documents out there: the strategic implementation plan, business plan, the Primer, and the conceptual design.

The strategic implementation plan will remain on hold until NOAA provides guidance. The business plan was approved in concept at the last membership meeting. It needs to continue to be revised and improved. The Primer was based on the business plan and is really meant for the stakeholders. The conceptual design was developed at NOAA’s request. It took one piece of the business plan and made it more concrete.

Sending the Primer to the Education and Outreach Committee for further revision would assist SECOORA by providing a document that would be useful in marketing. It provides a basic background of SECOORA.

MOTION (Leonard): Solicit input from Stakeholder Council on current version of Primer and provide that information to the Education and Outreach Committee, which will then provide suggestions to the Board as to best uses of the Primer.
SECOND (Spence)

The motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Get input on Primer from Stakeholder Advisory Council, incorporate it into the document, and provide this to the Education and Outreach Committee. (Lynn Leonard)

ACTION ITEM: Review and pare down the Primer. (Education and Outreach Committee)

 

DMCC Activities Update (Sam Walker)

The DMCC came together about a year ago, and has made a lot of progress, particularly in the last six months. On the DMCC, there is representation from all of the states in terms of the nodes and in data partners. Within the DMCC are informal working groups, focused around hub architecture, web re-design, architecture, and applications.

The group performs a lot of internal operations for the organization, in addition to the operations and services reflected on the public side. A principal activity is running the SECOORA Web site and domain. In essence, there are shorter-term tasks to accomplish longer-term strategies. All of this needs to be done within the structure of the organization and By-Laws, so it is a delicate balance.

Principal Accomplishments/Products:

1. Web site transition
2. Partnering across region has been successful, particularly with RENCI in North Carolina
3. One of SECOORA’s database schema is currently being evaluated and almost ready to be put forward nationally as consideration for an IOOS standard
4. Maintaining close working relationship with GCOOS and MACOORA
5. NetCDO development (dictionary)
6. Interactive mapping tool
7. Asset inventory
8. OpenSource software
9. Branding through new SECOORA logo development

Some of these efforts have been migrated over from sub-regional efforts. There has been a lot of behind the scenes housework that streamlined these tools and products.

 

Executive Director Vacancy (Board in Executive Session)

There will be a national/regional search for candidates. The Board discussed desired characteristics of candidates. They established a search committee consisting of: Jim Sanders, Otis Brown, Tom Kuba, Andy Clark, Judy Gray, and Elaine Knight.

MOTION (DeVoe): To establish a search committee to update /revise the provided position description, draft a process for filling the position, and establish a timeframe within which to fill the position. The Search Committee will consist of: Jim Sanders, Otis Brown, Tom Kuba, Andy Clark, Judy Gray, and Elaine Knight. The Chair of the Executive Committee will convene the initial meeting of the committee and step out of the process.
SECOND (Hood)

This motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board Chair will convene first meeting of the Search Committee (DeVoe)

ACTION: Update /revise the provided position description, draft a process for filling the position, and establish a timeframe within which to fill the position (Search Committee)

The Board has identified characteristics of the position to be used by the Search Committee. These characteristics are:

1. NGO experience
2. staff management experience
3. organizational management experience
4. traditional/nontraditional fundraising experience
5. knowledge of oceans
6. is aware of IOOS, ocean observing, and the ocean community
7. has connections with Federal government agencies, private industry, business, and foundations
8. credibility with the IOOS community and Congressional contacts
9. familiarity with Federal and State policy issues
10. decisive leadership skills

MOTION (DeVoe): To approve the afore-mentioned characteristics of a successful Executive Director candidate.
SECOND (Seim)

This motion passed unanimously.

 

Interim Executive Director (Board in Executive Session)

The Board determined that SECOORA should hire an Interim Executive Director for approximately 3-month timeframe.

MOTION (DeVoe): For staff to compile a list of tasks that need to be performed over the next 4-6 months.
SECOND (Vargo)

This motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Prepare task list for next 4-6 months (Staff)

The Board has agreed to reconvene another Executive Session the next day on May 13 at 4:30 PM to further consider the Interim Executive Director position.

MOTION (Leonard): To adjourn the Board meeting.
SECOND (Seim)

 

The Board meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

 

Appendices are available in Microsoft Word or PDF format.