CNS Future Committee Meeting, July 21st

Present: Todd, Linda, Manesh, Erik, Avrama, Steven, John, Upi, Phil, Mark, Christiane (2 more people who’s name I need to get).

Todd chairs meeting, supposed to run it according to agenda that Todd and Christiane proposed.

Manesh: Does choice we make about future structure impact funding chances?

Linda: Funding agencies have mechanisms for both (society or foundation)

Steven: I am worried about dependency on grant money. If we had 300 members each paying 100 $ membership fee we could replace the grant money easily.

Erik: Collecting fees is a hassle and may cost money as well. Alternative is to slowly build up a reserve fund. Total may come down to the same thing in the end.

Linda: To what degree are we dependent on federal funding?

Todd redirects discussion to agenda: Erik and Phil should discuss finances and organizational needs.

Phil: Points out that meeting is unstable. He had 0$ beginning of June. He was told be Denis that there is a serious possibility that grant could be renewed.

Erik: For grant renewal, we could use the argument that we are changing the meeting structure. Also, financially, next year’s meeting is fine without NIH grant money.

Phil: In general it is not a good thing to start with 0$ in the bank. We should certainly apply for the grant but not rely on having that money. We have to either generate more money or reduce expenses.

We need continuing infrastructure. Without existing staff etc from Universities it is not possible to organize a meeting like this. Same people should do it for several years in a row. We should think about a management company or academic unit. Hosting a meeting has real costs to the University. On a long term basis, we’d need a contract with a University that supports costs. Questions of financial liability can arise.

Linda: Erik says that the 2003 meeting in Spain can be dealt with. Does that mean that it can be carried by registration fees alone?

Erik: There will be Spanish and European funding as well. Unless there is a large decrease in attendees, which is not expected, next year’s meeting is sound.

Linda: Financial management would provide not just year to year handling but also book keeping. Individuals running the structure need to know what the budget is. Those questions need to be incorporated into the plan.

Erik: When discussing finances with Jim, there was the impression that 2002 meeting would generate a surplus. Nobody knows what happened to that money. There are always two parties taking a financial risk; board itself and local organizer. Local organizer needs a budget. We need to plan how profits are to be handled.

Linda: Non profit organizations limit liability. Special tax status can be used so that no taxes need to be paid. Choosing to incorporate as a non-profit organization does a lot for you,. We need some central structure.

Steven: What happens internationally to a US non-profit organization?

Erik: We should worry about that from the viewpoint of the local organizer. Who raises the registration fee? From Society’s viewpoint, we should centralize and take care of finances.

Steven: What happens when we have a financial catastrophe?

Erik: In Europe, national societies organize the meetings. We should think about our relationship with the local organizer. Formalize his/her position.

Upi: Organization works out because there is a University base. Can we somehow define such an arrangement?

Erik: For the Brugge meeting, I bypassed University because they would have taken 10% of the budget.

Linda; We cannot assume that local organization will assume responsibility. We need to built that in somehow.

Erik: Neuroinformatics website can continue doing the website (submission, review etc).

Steven: How much does that cost?

Erik: At this point, maintenance only. European community is paying for it.

Linda: Support staff needs to be taken into account for budget. How many man-hours does it take to organize a meeting like this? What organization is needed?

Erik: In addition to administrative support, you need scientists to do the work. Being the program committee chair takes a lot of work, more than just “chairing” the committee.

Steven: We need to factor in indirect costs as well.

Todd: We should define concrete goals: A goal for an honest budget and a time frame in which to accomplish that. Set a goal for when we want to be financially sound.

Erik: First goal should be to become financially sound.

Phil: We will be comfortable in Spain. We should come out of 2003 with some money. Main expenses are: Mailing, deposits, prepay hotel, caterer etc.

Linda: Is Phil still willing to deal with finances?

Phil: Willing to be helpful.

Linda: Do we need to set up someone to do finances immediately or how would that be done?

Phil: I need to be accountable to program committee.

The banc-account can be kept at the Univ. of Chicago until something new is in place. I, Phil, need to be involved officially as long as money is in Chicago. The money is in a type of account in which it can stay forever, that is were registration fees go.

Todd: We need to talk about more detail for those structures.

Erik: Before we break up, can we have a poll for Society vs. Board?

Todd summarizes pros and cons of each.

Steven: Society would help straighten out finances. I am very nervous about making the finances stable.

Poll shows that group is divided between Society vs. Board almost equally.

July 22nd

Present: John, Manesh, David, Upi, Erik, Linda, Steven, Mike, John, Phil, Peter, Mark, Todd, Christiane

Todd: Lets not first decide on Society vs. Board but first discuss some of the issues pertaining to that question. We can discuss each issue separately and then see what structure fits our ideas best.

1. Dues vs. Non-dues

Erik: My perspective on this issue is different. We need to think about what the benefits of a society would be.

Steven: Dues could be compensated by a lower registration fee. I’d like to see a good journal linked with the meeting, for example the Journal of Computational Neuroscience. Or we could give our members the proceedings at cost.

Todd: How many people that are not members would come to the meeting?

Dave: We could give proceedings at cost, but we could do that anyway. Dues smooth out the income.

Todd: One advantage of dues is that money comes in ahead of time.

Christiane: Administrative load would increase considerably, I don’t think we should add more to the stuff we have to worry about right now.

Linda: We could make it a goal to have income to pay a line for administrative assistance.

Erik: Our goal should be to automate the organization process as much as possible. Fluctuation in the registration fees should be avoided, changes in costs should rather be used to create a reserve.

John: I already suffer from Society membership overload. My organization does not pay membership dues, but does reimburse registration fees.

Linda: I have done a straw poll today. There are a number of people that said that membership dues would make this meeting less attractive for them.

Peter: Maybe we can think about a compromise solution to provide some revenue. We could have instutional members.

Erik: That may require some salesmanship on our part.

Dave: Dues in several societies that I am a member off are around 50-60$. I get the Journal free. And it will cost money to collect the dues.

Linda: You would not have to transfer funds all the time. The society/board to be founded would create a central functioning unit.

Todd: We all agree that we need a central structure. The existence of such a structure is independent of the question of membership dues.

Linda: We would need to maintain a memberlist no matter what.

Todd: If we having paying members, we need to pester them about paying and we need to keep track of who paid.

Erik: You’d have to have additional infrastructure to collect member dues. Even if that is done electronically, you still need to check who is a member etc.

John: Is anybody in this room still in favor of dues?

Todd: There seems to be little or no support for membership dues.

CONCENSUS #1: No membership dues.

Todd: We need to talk about governance. People with strong opinions about board vs. society should now voice these.

Erik: The question is: Democracy vs. benevolent dictatorship?

Mike: Based on personal experience, I see a few reasons why I think a voting membership is not such a good thing. One downside is that people get elected on the basis of name recognition without regard to how much time they are willing to put in, how devoted they are etc. The result can be a board full of people with strong opinions and now time implement these. It can be paralyzing that there is a lack of continuity and little following up on decisions. Problems seems to arise from the voting, which usually does not have a large member turn out anyway.

Linda: I was involved in the running of a small meeting that also fell into this hole. Members (no dues) were electing the board. Same people were always running for office, and the membership went down and down. Problems were similar to the ones Mike described.

Erik: That's how democracy functions.

Steven: It is not appealing. we actually know the community and who would be willing to do the work. How can we make sure, if we have a board, that it is representative enough?

John: From personal experience I think that it is important to be democratic or at least to be perceived as democratic. Having elections can be an important thing. We have to have a mechanism by which new blood is brought in.

Erik: We have had, for 8-9 years now, a program committee which was not elected but self-appointed. It has been quite successful in bringing in new people. From the perspective of the attendees this is not democratic, but worked well.

Upi: It seems that there are plenty of reasons for which societies can fall apart but that is also true for boards. Would there be other benefits for having a society rather than a board, for example a stronger presence, abilities to negotiate with other societies?

Peter: If you are a society, you have an advantage only if you can maintain active participation. It seems that a board would provide a service rather than need active participation.

Linda: I have the impression that most people coming to this meeting don’t care about participation unless it impacts them directly. Only then would they like to have input. We can continue having questionnaires,

and also report to the attendees about the state of the organization. That way, people don’t feel like they are being bypassed.

Steven: One of the reasons why the current structure is bearable is that Jim brought on people from the community and also stopped some people from taking over. We should try to make a policy to try and outline representation in the board.

Phil: Such a policy would be hard to implement because areas of investigation change so much.

Todd: Lets return to John’s point about the perception of democracy because that is very important. Because of how the meeting was run, who’s us and who is not may change. We want to be seem to be open to that. We need to give a perception of openness.

Dave: Perceptions come from announcements as well. Also, look at the names of the people who are on the committee right now. What matters is who ends up on the board, less how they get there. We can keep doing that. We need that culture.

Todd: You could have attendees nominate candidates and have the board choose from these?

Erik: Attendance of the meeting has always been important in appointing people. If you keep being nominated and the board never chooses you, that can be very embarrassing.

Steven: We could announce that we need new members. Ask for suggestions, and tell people that if they are interested they could come talk to one of us.

Todd: Are we done with the discussion vote vs. non-vote?

Manesh: We may run into a discrepancy between using people that have been committed to the meeting and brining in new people. Do we care more about keeping things as they are than about bringing in pockets of new people?

Todd: The goal of these discussions is the decide on a structure and bylaws. If power resides in a board, then the board can at any point decide to implement a procedure for nominations that they want. We may want to delay the question about the board until later.

Mark: There are people in the computational community who for whatever reason have never come to this meeting. That group may not want to attend a meeting where board is already closed.

CONCENSUS #2: Voting membership: NO

July 23rd

Todd, Erik, Steven, Manesh, Mark, Phil, Upi, Denis, James, Linda, Christiane, Avrama, John

Linda: I have looked into the cost of incorporating which should run at ~ $1000. After that, we have to worry about auditing when filing taxes. We may need help with filing taxes. That help can be provided by a University Technology Transfer group at a University.

Phil: I suspect that a law school council office could have something to do with that.

Todd: We need to accomplish skeleton bylaws, different powers etc. The details of the bylaws can be dealt with later. One of our goals should be a finance committee who will figure details out.

Steven: If we clear $10,000 from this meeting we may have to set $3000 or so aside to do the incorporating.

Todd: Are there any comments or objections to using some of our money to incorporate?

Phil: I am reasonably confident that we will have $5000 or so left from this meeting. Next years budget handles all local expenses but nothing else. We will need to keep some money for next year. It is not obvious that we will have money to do both (organizing 2003 meeting and incorporate).

Erik: Do we need to worry about the tax status of the profits? Some items have not yet been added into the 2003 budget, like income from the European community. We should not worry about a few $1000 to incorporate.

Phil: We should worry. It is not likely that we will have money a massif deficit We need to look very carefully at every expense.

Avrama: We cannot afford t wait.

Phil: We will understand the finances in about a month. When all the bills are paid, we can make a careful budget. I had ~$20,000 expenses that we had not expected this year. We need to include everything in next year's budget, not just expect Albert to come up with money last minute.

Todd: Do we have more discussions about incorporating?

Mark: I have a question about the structure. Could the meeting be held in a few same locations?

Todd: Then we would have a permanent local organizing committee. We don't need to discuss that now.

Todd: We should think about having vice president and a grants-person.

Phil: We need to discuss this with Denis. It is not clear how the PI on the grant should relate to the board. It does seem reasonable that the grants person should be on the board.

Denis: It does not make a difference to NIH. The PI is the one that is responsible for the work to get done. The PI has a legal responsibility when accepting the grant.

Phil: The person that accepts the grant has the legal responsibility to get the meeting done but has no power to actually run the meeting.

Linda: Can the grant be allocated to the foundation, not to a person?

Denis: The grant needs a PI.

Erik: What is the advantage of separating grant-PI from treasurer?

Phil: It would allow for a stand-off when there is a disagreement.

Linda: Such issues should be resolved.

Manesh: Keeping track of the grant money would be the role of the treasurer anyway.

Phil: Its worth raising these kinds of issues. Should the treasurer be responsible for being the PI on the grant.

Manesh: The treasurer may change more often than the PI on the grant.

Erik: I think that we want the treasurer to be appointed for a long time.

Steven: I don't see any advantage for the treasurer also being the PI on the grant.

Todd: I propose that the chair of the grant committee as well as the chair of the program committee can be full filled by Officers. 3-4 officers could have double functions.

Linda: I think that committees are a good idea, because the work is divided.

Steven: We can form committees ad hoc. There is no need to decide now.

Phil: The grants-person has to be American.

Erik: I propose 6 positions, 4 people.

CONCENSUS #4: Executive committee: President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Chair of the Grants committee, Chair of the Program committee, Chair of the local organizing committee.

Seven jobs fulfilled by at least 4 people.

Todd: Now we need to talk about appointments and terms.

One possibility is to have no specified terms by appointment by the board every year.

Linda: I'd like to avoid changing every year. Every 2 or 3 years would be ok. Too long a time is not good.

Todd: The goal here is to decide upon what will be in the bylaws, the defaults. Bylaws should not prevent the board from making decisions. In the case things fall apart, what we decide here is what will happen.

Linda: I think that the terms need to be in the bylaws. We need to discuss them here.

Todd; I suggest 1 year terms with reappointment.

Linda: We need to make them longer than 1 year, otherwise we loose structure. At least 2 years.

Mahesh: We could say that we intend for people to stay for 2-3 years.

Linda: I strongly suggest that 1 year is too short.

Avrama: Two years seem like a good compromise.

James: The hidden agenda here seems to be to get things done. Its good to establish an agenda in such a way that it becomes a checklist. Each officer's role is to keep the logbook current. It is good to keep maximal flexibility with people. I think that flexibility is kept with 1 year appointments.

Steven: The grant is the one item for which flexibility should not be allowed. The structure should be such that whoever does the grant must keep it unless there is somebody else to become the PI.

Denis: There are no Co-PIs on NIH grants.

Todd: Is there another suggestion than 2 years of longer on the table?

Erik: Look at the past: We rotate the program committee.

Linda: We need to avoid "fossilizing" the board.

Steven: How about renewable two-year terms?

Avrama: Consider reappointment up to a maximum number of years.

Todd: There could be a takeover. We should prevent more than two officers being renewed in any given year.

Christiane: I don't think we have the resources to rotate all the officers every two years.

Phil: Agreed.

Mahesh: We are trying to generate flexibility. Decreased flexibility may come to hunt us later.

Todd: Our job is to make sure that things cannot go wrong.

Upi: If a board wants to rack it, they can do it!

Todd: How about this compromise: After 5 years a reappointment has to be approved by a 2/3 rds majority.

Steven: Lets leave it the way its been written in the bylaw drafts.

Todd: I like my idea.

James: In appointing people, how is that done?

Todd: Decision should be made by the board. Lets decide on terms and numbers now.

1 year or two years?

CONCENSUS #5: Initial appointment for two years, then reappointment every year, and after 5 years, reappointment only with a 2/3 majority.

Todd: What should our steady state board look like? What is its responsibility? The program committee gets the approval of the board. The board is in control, but should act as a rubberstamp.

Erik: The program committee gets renewed fairly fast. That’s good.

Christiane: we could open up the board to the broader community.

Erik: It could be a largely passive board. People can mobilize the members.

Avrama: I am against a large board.

Erik: That’s why to exercise your voting rights you have to come to a meeting.

Todd: That creates the problem that then you have to have a meeting.

Important decisions should be taken at annual meeting only.

Mahesh: Maybe we could not open up the board but invite everyone to come to the meeting.

Avrama: I like the idea of people coming to the meeting, but not have them on the board.

Todd: Even if we have an open board we need to decide now how people get on it.

Steven: What is the disadvantage of an open board?

James: The number of people who actually show up is usually very small. That’s why I suggest an open board.

Todd: With an open board, there is the danger of a takeover.

Avrama: I agree with Todd. If we allow people to nominate themselves we should limit the number.

Erik: I am not convinced that we want to have term limits. It would be weird to have term limits on the board but not for the executive committee.

Steven: The people that are not here now should have the opportunity to be included in the board.

Todd: Several options: 5 years on board with the exception of the executive committee; or 5 years with reappointment; self-nomination process with board approval?

Avrama: Specify a number of 15 members including the executive committee.

Todd: I think it would be better to have a big board.

Upi: We could have a simple rule which is the same than for the executive committee.

Erik: The board should provide stability.

Avrama: We should rotate people off after 15 years.

Upi: Things are getting to complicated.

Erik: You can get appointed for 5 years and then you can reapply.

CONCENSUS #6: Board members are appointed for 5 years, then rotate off. They can be reappointed immediately. If you miss the CNS Meeting 2 years in a row, you are automatically rotated off the board.

There will be 15 board members at least.

Erik: We could appoint the executive committee now, and then the program committee can appoint the board later.

CONCENSUS #7: Executive committee will be appointed during CNS 2002. Then, in the fall, the executive committee together with the program committee will appoint a board.

July 24th.

Meeting to appoint the members of the first executive committee.

Attendants: Christiane Linster, Robert Kozma, Alain Destehexe, John Pezaris, Todd Troyer, Albert Compte, Manesh Sahani, David Horn, John Herz, James Winslow, Upi Bhalla, Victoria Booth, Linda Larson-Prior, Erik DeSchutter

The group unanimously appointed the following executive committee:

President: Christiane Linster

Vice-President: Todd Troyer

Secretary: Erik DeSchutter

Treasurer: Linda Larson-Prior

Chair of the Program Committee: Erik DeSchutter

Chair of the Grants Committee: Phil Ulinski

Chair of the local organization Committee: Albert Compte