Present:
Linda Young (President and IBS Council), Louise Ryan (Past-President), Carol Redmond (President-Elect), Karen Bandeen-Roche (Secretary), Tim Gregoire (Treasurer and IBS Council), Jane Pendergast (RAB Chair), Greg Campbell (RAB Chair-designate), Kathy Hoskins (Executive Director, Drohan Management), Joan Chmiel (Operations Manual Committee Chair), Barry Davis (RECOM and IBS Council), Gerald Beck, Craig Borkowf, Joan Chmiel, Fred Emmermann, Mary Foulkes, Beth Gladen, Larry Gould, Joel Greenhouse, Boris Iglewicz, Ralph Kodell, Peter Lachenbruch, John Lachin (2002 Local Arrangements representative, 2002 Spring Meeting), Lisa LaVange (ENAR correspondent to Biometric Bulletin), Elizabeth Margosches, Ron McRoberts (RAB), Katherine Monti, Judith O'Fallon, Mike O'Fallon, Walt Piegorsch (RECOM), Alicia Toledano, Ji Zhang.

1. Welcome: Linda Young opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m., welcoming all in attendance.

2. Minutes The minutes of the August 2000 RECOM/RAB meeting in Indianapolis were distributed and unanimously approved.

3. Meetings
   1. 2001 Spring Meeting - Kathy Hoskins summarized registrations to the present as: 952 participants, 334 short courses, and 322 tutorials. She noted that numbers in all categories were higher than in 2000. Kathy further reported that: all 13 roundtables had been full, except for three seats; 12 exhibitors had been on site; advertising, sponsorships, and exhibition revenues had all exceeded budgeted values. Linda Young acknowledged the excellent service of the Charlotte Program Chair and Local Arrangements Chair.

   2. 2002 Spring Meeting - Carol Redmond described progress to date organizing the 2002 Spring Meeting (Crystal City, Virginia, a close suburb of Washington, D.C.). She began by reporting that Joanna Shih had agreed to organize the 2002 Program and pointed out a flier soliciting invited session proposals, which had been distributed in each registration packet. Carol further reported that the Local Arrangements Chair is Kathryn Hirst, Department of Biostatistics, George Washington University. Representing Kathryn, John Lachin solicited social function ideas. In addition to John, Tony Lachenbruch, Linda Young, Elizabeth Margosches, and Larry Gould forwarded ideas; these included the National Building Museum, the Krieger Museum, a monument tour with box lunches, a Potomac river cruise on the Odyssey, a Kennedy Center event outing, and a catered dinner at one of the museums. Larry expressed disappointment with the event in Charlotte and suggested that we consider not having a social function. Elizabeth countered that many enjoy the social function. Reaction to the idea of a catered museum dinner was mixed; many reacted positively, but Kathy Hoskins predicted prohibitive cost, and Tim Gregoire recalled the museum event in Birmingham as not great. Joan Chmiel voiced preference for a mixing atmosphere. John solicited feedback on contracting buses versus traveling by subway. A strong consensus favored subway travel; both convenience and cost savings were cited.

4. Treasurer's Report

   Tim Gregoire summarized his Treasurer's Report, which had been distributed to attendees as they entered the meeting. He noted that the close of the fiscal year had been changed from the middle to the end of the calendar year as of December 31, 2000, hence care should be applied comparing figures across years. Reviewing the report page by page:

   1. Balance Sheet (first page) - Tim reported our total assets at approximately $300,000 as of December 31, 2000. He noted these as being $60,000 in excess, or 127%, of one year's operating expenses and cited assets at 150% of one year's operating expenses as our target. Tim characterized our financial health as better now than a few years ago and reiterated the need to keep building toward the 150% target.

   2. Overall Comparative Statement (second page) - Tim noted figures as being mostly in accordance with planning and past experience. He pointed out that significantly higher-than-expected JSM revenue of $19,257 for calendar year 2000 reflected the unusually successful 1999 meetings. Tim wondered whether there wasn't also a change in the formula computing revenues. Mike O'Fallon thought not and reiterated the unusual success of 1999 meetings. Tim further identified a "miscellaneous" category shortfall as reflecting a $3,000 contribution to NISS. Louise Ryan asked why our membership dues assets had decreased, but our corresponding payment to IBS had increased. Tim hypothesized the discrepancy as an artifact of the shift in fiscal year. Larry Gould commented that the 1999 and 2000 averages were consistent with this but wondered why meeting expenses had risen. Tim identified larger meetings as the cause.

   3. Spring Meeting Comparative Statement (third page) - Tim noted that the total meeting revenue of $182,054 for calendar year 2000 includes tutorial but not short course revenues; as of next year, we will break out tutorial revenues separately as well. The associated meeting balance was a net profit of approximately $30,000. Larry noticed that overall net revenue for the Region was down in 2000 compared to 1999. Tony Lachenbruch suggested that 2000 revenue is unresolved since a Spring Meeting's revenues ultimately count in the balance for the previous year.

   4. Short Course Comparative Statement (fourth page) - Tim compared revenue of approximately $37,000 to costs of $17,600, for net profit of approximately $20,000 in 2000.

   In open discussion, Larry Gould asked whether other societies participating in the Spring Meeting share registration revenues and costs? Carol Redmond replied that they have not, at least as of 1990. Linda Young distinguished the case of the Spring Meeting, for which ENAR assumes all costs, versus JSM, whose participating societies share revenues and costs according to a contract. She acknowledged that ASA and IMS participation enriches our Spring Meeting but noted that the societies assume no financial risk. Joan Chmiel asked whether ENAR's assets reside in investments or cash. Tim replied that Bill Drohan has strongly advised conservative allocation to date, and we have followed his advice.

5. Future Joint Statistical Meetings

   Linda Young briefly reported on ENAR participation in the 2001 and 2002 JSMs. Francoise Seillier-Moiseiwitsch is our Program Chair for the 2001 meeting; she has overseen the development of 8 ENAR-sponsored invited sessions. Sati Mazumdar is our 2002 Program Chair. Linda reported that she is just starting her preparations and welcomes contact over ideas for invited sessions.

6. Proposed Changes to the Spring Meeting

   Linda Young introduced a proposal to restructure fees for the Spring Meeting by citing the surprising number of ENAR non-members who attend our Spring Meeting. Approximately 25% of attendees at the latest meeting were not ENAR members. Linda identified most of these as ASA members and cited as a possible reason the false belief of some that the ASA Biometrics Section and ENAR overlap. She pointed out that attending non-members are receiving the benefits of ENAR membership free of cost, despite the costs that their enlargement of our meeting pose. She stated the latest proposal for fee-setting, following vetting by the Executive Committee, RAB, and RECOM, as:

   • $155 for ENAR members
   • $175 for ASA and IMS members, or for registration plus a one-year ENAR Associate Membership
   • $225 for registration plus a one-year ENAR Full Membership
   • $240 for non-members

   Ron McRoberts commented that this proposal differed from the one that RAB had vetted and asked for clarification. Linda reminded the group of the difference between RAB, who are appointed and whose role is advisory, and RECOM, who are elected and have voting status. Jane Pendergast offered that there had been a fair amount of RAB discussion on the issue, which had noted the decreasing value of Biometrics to membership. She recapped RAB recommendations-that: non-ENAR IBS members be given the preferred registration rate provided reciprocation in kind by their regions; IBS non-reciprocating regions be treated equally as ASA and IMS members; and that the preferred ENAR rate be given to invited speakers. She further noted RAB feeling that it has become feasible to track membership and that we must recognize that non-ENAR IBS members cannot join ENAR.

   Subsequent open discussion pursued several issues:

   • Reciprocity with other IBS regions – Tony Lachenbruch suggested that perhaps our reciprocity proposal should be considered as an IBS-wide policy. Judith O'Fallon countered that ENAR is the most affluent region, hence should offer its lowest registration fee to non-ENAR IBS members as a courtesy regardless of reciprocity. Mike O'Fallon agreed, adding that there are probably not enough non-ENAR IBS attendees to be worth the effort of a separate fee. Tony, Larry Gould, Elizabeth Margosches, and others joined in agreement, suggesting that our lead might be an example to other IBS regions. Ron McRoberts interjected that the RAB intent was not to penalize other regions, but merely to make a point on the fairness of reciprocity. He cited his own experience seeing benefit in attending WNAR meetings yet having to pay a higher rate as an Eastern Region member. He ultimately agreed with Judith but suggested that we raise the issue with IBS. Judith and Elizabeth reiterated that other regions are poor and should not be bothered with the issue, and that we might raise the issue only with WNAR. Joel Greenhouse raised the issue of basic fairness, suggesting that all IBS members should be treated equally. The matter was put to a straw poll, with voting options being that: (i) ENAR offer its lowest meeting fee to all non-ENAR regions without raising the issue of reciprocity; (ii) As (i), except that we raise reciprocity only with WNAR; (iii) ENAR offer its lowest meeting fee to all non-ENAR regions but raise the reciprocity issue with IBS. A large majority voted in favor of (i); few voted for (ii); and only one or two voted for (iii).

   • Invited speakers – Linda Young voiced two arguments against offering our lowest meeting fee to invited speakers not belonging to ENAR: problems with verifying invited status, and her sense that quite a few invited speakers do not belong to ENAR but could. Larry Gould forwarded a motion that we offer no special consideration to invited speakers. In subsequent discussion, Jane Pendergast noted the value of broad speaker participation in our meeting and suggested that the number of people involved is not so great. Joan Chmiel suggested that perhaps the offer of lowest fee should depend on the source of the invitation, say ENAR versus ASA sections or IMS. Elizabeth Margosches noted that the JSM policy is for any person not belonging to one of its five member societies to pay a higher fee, and that waivers are available for invited speakers who are not statisticians. Mike O'Fallon suggested that the JSM policy is not firm and remains problematic. Linda noted that the waiver solution to the issue had come up in discussions over the past few days. Craig Borkowf wondered whether our policy might have ramifications on pharmaceutical company sponsorships. Lisa LaVange doubted that there would be much of a problem. Louise Ryan stated that the point at issue was not primarily financial, but rather the value of ENAR membership. She reiterated the opinion that Biometrics value is decreasing and that the Spring Meeting is the primary benefit that ENAR provides its members. Linda pointed out that membership has been decreasing despite increasing meeting registrations. Walt Piegorsch reported that he had run the new proposal by an "n of 1," and that the individual had no problem with the fee modifications. Lisa commented that our meeting is a bargain and would remain so after the proposed fee changes. Ji Zhang raised concerns over effects on those who pay their own way, as opposed to industry representatives. A straw poll was taken; 2 of those present reported having paid their own way. Ron McRoberts urged that the invited speaker policy, however it would be decided, be communicated clearly to the societies who participate with ENAR in the Spring Meeting. He also noted the difficulty in organizing sessions whose topic areas are not well represented in ENAR without outside participation and cited forestry as an example. Lisa suggested that being an invited speaker is an honor in its own right. Joel Greenhouse reiterated the issue as giving something special to ENAR members and supported the proposal of not distinguishing fees by invited speaker status. Tony Lachenbruch suggested that we might pose the ENAR member fee as a discount to a standard fee. Katherine Monti pointed out that there is substantial precedent for different registration rates. A vote was taken on Larry's motion that special consideration not be given to invited speakers in setting fees. 16 voted in favor, 7 against.

   • Solidification and vote on the overall proposal – Judith O'Fallon asked whether ASA membership can be verified; the reply was that verification is not feasible, and we must rely on registrants' self report. John Lachin queried whether all ENAR non-members who belong to ASA or IMS should be granted ENAR Associate Membership with their registration fee. Larry Gould proposed that a vote be taken on the fee proposal that had been distributed, and Linda Young recapped the categories and fees. Ji Zhang questioned how Canadians should be treated. The reply was that Canadian members may belong to either the Eastern or Western North American Region, so that the IBS rules apply. Greg Campbell highlighted the program contribution that such individuals make. Tony Lachenbruch proposed an amendment to Linda's proposed fee structure (see first paragraph under section 4, above): that bullet 1 be redirected to "IBS" rather than "ENAR" members, and that the 2nd bullet fee level be verified at $175 rather than $195. Jane Pendergast reminded the group that the business meeting does not comprise a voting body, so that any vote may reflect the sense of the membership but may not overturn a standing RECOM action. Ron McRoberts further proposed that categories including ENAR membership should be clarified to "new" Associate or Full Membership. Mike O'Fallon asked whether anyone had analyzed the likely ramifications of the proposed fee changes. He suggested that bookkeeping issues should be considered, at least, and that ENAR should not risk the profit that it has just begun to make. Louise Ryan supported having Linda's proposal stand, but suggested that we prominently offer the opportunity to become an Associate ENAR member. Tony suggested that those inviting speakers be proactive, e.g. remarking that joining would facilitate invitation. Craig Borkowf raised the idea of having stickers to identify meeting participants' memberships. Elizabeth Margosches pointed out that it's easy to let one's membership lapse and asked whether a reminder could be provided. A vote was taken on Larry's motion to support Linda's proposal as given; 18 were in favor, 2 against.

7. LCD Projectors

   Linda Young reported continuing discussion on the growing need to have LCD projectors for our meetings. She requested feedback on whether members were willing to pay to provide projectors. Mary Foulkes strongly affirmed her willingness. Tony Lachenbruch added that speakers should be required to use Power Point. Judith O'Fallon urged that we be sure to accommodate MacIntosh and other platforms. Ji Zhang strongly disagreed with requiring that speakers use Power Point. Mary replied that speakers are failing to convey information due to their ineffective use of overheads; Ji replied that conveying information is a function of the speaker, not the presentation format. Gerald Beck suggested that slide projectors may no longer be needed; a straw poll indicated rare slide usage, but there was discussion against and for eliminating slide projectors. Ron McRoberts urged that we take care not to outstrip JSM fees. A straw poll was taken on whether meeting attendees would be willing to pay extra to provide the option of LCD projector usage; 15 voted willingness and 2 voted against.

8. New Business

   Tony Lachenbruch proposed that speakers should be required to forward their slides to their session chairs one month in advance of the meeting. Linda Young opposed the idea, preferring to communicate guidelines and rely on peer pressure to effect behavior change. Judith O'Fallon remarked that guidelines need to be better communicated. Craig Borkowf suggested that session chairs rate speakers as they do at the JSM, and that resulting information could be provided to future committees. Larry Gould reiterated Judith's point, saying that there had been no impact of communicating guidelines to speakers, and he offered to personally send our guidelines to each speaker. Linda suggested that blanket e-mail might be an effective means of communication. Mike O'Fallon noted the long history of discussing speaker quality and suggested that change could only be effected through dramatic action, such as requiring PowerPoint. Beth Gladen countered that presentation quality is a matter of speaker attitude rather than technology. Jane Pendergast proposed that the discussion be tabled but noted the effect of immediate feedback on behavior modification. Mary noted that PowerPoint output can be printed on transparencies and urged that statisticians consider their presentation in outside contexts.

   Briefly returning to ENAR membership, Ji Zhang raised the issue of which new members we should aim to attract. He suggested that RECOM is not sufficiently diverse, e.g. includes no pharmaceutical statisticians. He allowed that RAB had pharmaceutical representation in the past but reiterated the need to attract pharmaceutical statisticians as well as others who poorly represented. Linda and others noted that the newly formed Membership Committee was charged with issues exactly like Ji was raising.

No other new business was forwarded.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Bandeen-Roche
ENAR Secretary